J. Chelameswar, C.J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6868 of 2010 is the appellant herein. The writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment dated 19th May, 2010 in the abovementioned writ petition.

2. The appellant was in the service of the first respondent Kerala State Electricity Board.

He retired from service on 31st July, 2009. During the period between 9.1.1987 and 27.9.1988 he was working as 'Cashier trainee'. The further details of his employment may not be necessary except to state that as part of such a duty the appellant had to handle certain monies belonging to the first respondent Board.

3. On 11.10.1988 it was detected that the appellant did not account for certain amounts of cash. There was shortage of an amount of `26091/-. Consequent upon the detection of such fact the appellant was kept under suspension on 21.10.1988. An enquiry was ordered after a long lapse of almost five years on 30th July, 1993. The appellant continued under suspension until he was reinstated to service on 11.2.1994.

4. By the proceedings (Ext.P4) of the second respondent dated 2.9.1997 the appellant was called upon to remit an amount of `14020.15 along with interest, etc. obviously towards the recovery of the amount which could not be accounted for by the appellant. The amounts mentioned in the said document were remitted by the appellant.

5. However, the respondents could not conclude the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant. It must be mentioned that the charge memo itself was issued on 21.6.1997. The enquiry referred to in Ext.P4 document dated 2.9.1997 appears to be an administrative enquiry distinct from the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the appellant.

6. During the pendency of the said disciplinary enquiry, the appellant retired from the service. After his retirement the appellant approached this Court by W.P.(C) No.6868 of 2010 praying as follows:

"i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to award and release Superannuation Pension in full reckoning petitioner's entire service as qualifying service;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to release the salary arrears for suspension period, leave surrender benefits, commuted value of full pension due along with DCRG admissible based on emoluments drawn on the date of retirement;

iii) issue such other writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and to allow this Original Petition with the petitioner's costs."

7. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court held that the document under Ext.P4 dated 2.9.1997 is not an order imposing punishment on the conclusion of disciplinary enquiry. It is held at paragraph 4 as follows:

"........................ A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that by this order, all that the Board has done is to call upon the petitioner to remit the balance amount found to have been lost by the Board on account of the misconducts committed by the petitioner. In my view, apart from recouping the loss the Board has suffered, this order does not lead me to infer that the recovery was as a punishment imposed in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, I am not prepared to conclude that the disciplinary action has come to a close by Ext.P4 and that therefore, the respondents were not justified in issuing Ext.P6."

The learned Judge further held as follows:

"Therefore, unless there is some other liability due from the petitioner, there is absolutely no justification for not disbursing DCRG that is due to him. Therefore, it is directed that, if no other liability is outstanding from the petitioner, the DCRG that is due to the petitioner shall be released to him as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ....................

Needless to say that if final orders