Shaffique, J.

Since common questions arise for consideration in these appeals, the same are decided together.

2. The issue involved is regarding the application of Rule 3A(a) of Part III Kerala Service Rules (for short KSR) and the correctness of the judgment in Aravindaksha Panicker v. Accountant General (2007 (4) KLT 1031).

3. Writ Appeal 1396/2010 arises from the judgment dated 19/5/2010 in WP(C) No.23882/2007. Writ petition is filed by the respondent in the appeal, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), claiming payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (for short DCRG). He retired from service on superannuation on 31/12/2002. DCRG was not paid on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. He submitted that though he was placed under suspension on 22/6/1999, he was reinstated on 29/12/1999. No enquiry was conducted and no report was available. It was his contention that by virtue of Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR, as no liability has been fastened on him after a period of three years from the date of retirement, he was entitled to the DCRG amount along with 12% interest.

4. Statement was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent contending that an amount of Rs.1,62,848/- was sanctioned by the Accountant General as early as on 10/12/2002 towards DCRG. However, when non liability report was called for, the same was not made available. The Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar informed that disciplinary case against the petitioner was pending finalisation in which an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was involved. It is therefore contended that the cases against the petitioner having not been finalised, the liability could not be assessed and that it will be finalised within two months. The learned Single Judge observed that since the liability has not been fixed within the time permitted, petitioner is entitled for the DCRG which has to be paid within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

5. Writ Appeal No.326/11 arises from the judgment dated 10/12/2009 in WP(C) No. 21122/06. Petitioner in the case retired on 28/4/2006 as an Agricultural Officer. He was suspended from service on 18/8/2001. Suspension was revoked on 11/12/2003. He also submitted that the vigilance department has conducted a detailed enquiry into the allegations raised against him and though it was found to be false, no proceedings were issued in that regard. Petitioner sought for treating the period of suspension as duty. It was finally allowed as per order dated 22/3/2006. Petitioner further submits that after he retired on 28/4/2006, he received a communication dated 8/5/2006 along with a Demand Draft for Rs.13,338/-, being the last salary of the petitioner. He was again served with another order dated 28/4/2006 suspending him from service on 28/4/2006. It is contended that the suspension order is mala fide, arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order of suspension and direction to the respondents to disburse pension and other terminal benefits to the petitioner.

6. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit was filed by the respondents, who are the appellants herein, inter alia stating that the petitioner was suspended with effect from 28/4/2006 and his normal date of retirement was 30/4/2006. He superannuated on 28/4/2006 as 29th and 30th were holidays. Further, it is stated that petitioner was involved in certain misconducts and investigation was under progress. Criminal case No.VC 3/2001 was registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau alleging misappropriation of Government money in which the petitioner was exonerated. Another vigilance case 2/2004 registered alleging misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- is pending investigation.

7. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that two prosecution cases are pending against the petitioner as VC 2/2004 and VC 16/2003 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Jud