Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.22648/2009, whereby an employee of the Agricultural Department of the State was held entitled to treat his suspension period, prior to dismissal from service, as service consequent to the setting aside of the order of dismissal and his reinstatement in service and entitled to all consequential service benefits for the said period. The Division Bench that heard the appeal was of the view that, insofar as the dismissal of the employee was in terms of Rule 18(iii)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "KCS (CC&A) Rules" and based on a conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act", on the said conviction being set aside by the appellate court, he would have to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits as contemplated under Rule 18(iii)(b) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules. While taking this view, the attention of the Division Bench was drawn up to the decision of another Division Bench dated 22.7.2010 in Principal Secretary (Finance) and Others v. V.C.Jose [W.A.No.437/2010] where the Bench took the view that in cases where a suspension was ordered prior to dismissal based on conviction by a court, although on the conviction being set aside, the employee would be reinstated, the period of absence from duty did not have to be treated as service and he would not be eligible for full wages in terms of Rule 18(iii) (b) of KCS (CCA) Rules. It was under these circumstances that the Division Bench that heard the present writ appeal felt that the matter should be examined by a Full Bench and the matter has been placed before us for our consideration.

2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader Sri. P.I. Davis for the appellant and Sri. S.P. Aravindaksha Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Before examining the relevant statutory provisions, the brief facts in V.C.Jose's case [supra], as also the facts in the present writ appeal, may be separately noticed. In V.C.Jose's case [supra], the employee in question was working as a Junior Accountant in the Sub Treasury Office, Kasargod. He was caught by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, accepting bribe from the Principal of a Parallel College for numbering a bunch of chalan forms presented before the Treasury for remittance of examination fees of the students. By an order dated 10.12.1997, he was suspended by the District Treasury Officer, Kasargod pending enquiry. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kasargod filed a charge sheet before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kasargod alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Special Judge, after trial, convicted the employee and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine for the offences aforementioned. Thereafter, the District Treasury Officer terminated the services of the employee with effect from 17.12.2001. The employee was subsequently acquitted by the appellate court giving him the benefit of doubt, by a judgment dated 15.7.2005. Thereafter, pursuant to a representation made by the employee, he was reinstated in service on 5.12.2005 and he rejoined the service with effect from 14.12.2005. The Principal Secretary, Finance, thereafter regularised the period of absence of the employee from 8.12.1997 to 14.12.2005 as duty for all purposes except pay and allowances and the accrual of earned leave for the period was reduced to subsistence allowance admissible under Rule 55 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the 'KSR'. The employee therefore filed a further representation before the Government cont