ORDER

Alexander Thomas, J After hearing both sides it appears that the petitioner/accused was already convicted by judgment 06.08.2018 rendered by the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram in CC No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. So it can be seen that the judgment of conviction of the criminal court has been rendered on 06.08.2018, which is even before the O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal on 09.11.2018 and also before the rendering of the impugned judgment dated 14.03.2019 in the present OP(KAT). Hence, it can be seen that even if it is assumed that the judicial proceedings are pending on account of the filing of the final report/charge sheet before the criminal court, the said judicial proceedings stands terminated on and with effect from 06.08.2018 on account of the judgment of conviction rendered by the criminal court concerned. That being so, the payment of the pensionary benefits including the DCRG cannot be postponed or withheld any longer and it becomes the statutory obligation of the competent authority of the State Government to pass final orders in the proceedings initiated in terms of the operative portion of Rule 3 Part III KSR on the basis of the judgment of conviction as to whether the same discloses the case of grave misconduct or negligence on the part of the petitioner. That apart, with the termination of the judicial proceedings, it also becomes the bounden obligation of the authorities concerned to immediately release the DCRG and if liabilities as envisaged in Note 2 and Note 3 of Part III KSR had not been finalized within the outer time limit of three years' from the date of retirement as mandated in Note 3 thereof, then the full DCRG amount is to be paid to him. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2017 and the three years outer limit under Rule 3 Part III KSR has also expired on 31.05.2020. These crucial aspect of matters has not been taken into consideration in the rendering of impugned judgment dated 14.03.2019 in OP(KAT)No.110 of 2019 and therefore, we are constrained to hold that the same would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, though the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment rendered in OP(KAT) by this Court had noted the abovesaid facts regarding the judgment of conviction being rendered by the criminal court on 06.08.2018. The view taken in the said impugned orders/judgment is to the effect that the above Criminal Appeal was pending on account of the petitioner/accused filing appeal against conviction. The same would amount to continuation of the impugned judicial proceedings, etc. It has to be noted that the judgment of conviction has already been rendered and therefore a criminal appeal filed by the petitioner/accused to challenge the judgment of conviction, cannot be treated as continuation of the judicial proceedings as understood in Rule 3 Part III KSR. That apart, no provisions are made in Rule 3 Part II KSR for treating the criminal appeal or civil appeal as continuation of the original impugned criminal proceedings or the civil proceedings and unless explicit provisions are made in that regard such inferences cannot be made. It has to be borne in mind that the judgment of conviction is adverse to the petitioner. If that be so, even if it is taken as worst scenario against the retired employee, the employer cannot further prolong the agony of non-finalization of the proceedings under Rule 3 Part III KSR on the specious ground that criminal appeal against conviction is pending at the instance of the convicted accused. If at all the petitioner/accused subsequently succeeds in getting the conviction reversed or modified in the criminal appeal, then the proceedings under Rule 3 Part III KSR finalized will have to be later reviewed subject to the outcome of the said criminal appeal. Hence, the competent authority/State