The scope of Rule 56B(i)(a) of Part I of the KSR vis-a-vis the operation of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960 {for short "the Rules"} comes up for consideration in this case. While this court has, on several occasions, spoken on the nature of the power to be exercised under Rules 56 and 56B of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules {for short "KSR"} dealing with the question as to the pay and allowances that a Government servant is entitled to, on reinstatement after revocation of a suspension, in relation to the period during which he was kept under suspension, the question as to whether Rule 18(b) of the Rules has overriding effect in these matters does not seem to have been specifically raised for consideration in such cases. Counsel on both sides made elaborate submissions on this aspect.

2. The petitioner, while serving as an Upper Division Clerk in the Regional Transport Office, Thrissur, was prosecuted for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.13/93 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. In the meanwhile, taking note of the fact that he was implicated in a criminal case, he was placed under suspension by the Transport Commissioner by order dated 211.1991. The commissioner had taken note of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 111.1991 by the Vigilance Department in connection with the corruption (trap) case. The petitioner was convicted by the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Taking note of the conviction of the petitioner as per judgment dated 22.1995, the Transport Commissioner vide order dated 210.1995 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioners conviction was confirmed by this court by judgment dated 26.2001 in Crl.A.No.190/95.

.3. Thepetitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Supreme Court and by Ext.P1 judgment dated 12.2002 the Supreme Court held that the authority, which had apparently given sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had no jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, there was an embargo on the courts power to take cognizance for non-compliance of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the proceedings in the criminal case were quashed. The State sought for a review of Ext.P1 judgment, referring to Section 19 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, contending that no finding or sentence passed under the Prevention of Corruption Act shall be reversed on the ground of absence or any omission or irregularities in the sanction required under Section 19(1) of the Act, unless, in the opinion of the court, there was a failure of justice. The Supreme Court, by Ext.P2 order, held as follows:

."Earlier refusal to grant sanction brings about entirely a different situation. Looking to all facts and circumstances indicated above we do not find any reason to recall or review our order as ultimately it would not result in any change in the decision of the case. For the above reasons, we decline to interfere in the Review Petitions, which are accordingly dismissed."

4. Subsequent to Ext.P2, the petitioner preferred a representation on 2.2004, seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. By G.O.(Rt)No.197/04/Transport dated 6.2004, Ext.P3 order, the petitioners request, as such, was not accepted and the Government held that it is necessary to conduct a departmental enquiry on the allegations on which the penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The Transport Commissioner was directed to conduct the enquiry and furnish the enquiry report with his findings within a time frame. It was further directed that the petitioner will continue under suspension from the date on which he was dismissed as per Government Order dated 211.1996 viz., from the date of effect of his original suspension i.e. 211.1991.

5. Pursuant