JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. On the conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performance of official duties and an appeal pending before the High Court, is the employee still entitled to the release of his Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (for short ‘DCRG’) is the moot point arising for consideration in the present appeals. We are, in fact, examining a Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court which resolved the conflict of view of the Division Benches and ruled in favour of the employees. The controversy having been set down, the Government of Kerala, which is naturally aggrieved by the decision of the Full Bench is before us on the aforesaid issue.

Factual Background:

2. In the main appeal before us, the question of law is the same but the facts differ in the two cases of the two employees.

3. (A) K. Chandran, the respondent in the appeal was working as Village Extension Officer, Noolaphuza. In the course of his employment the Vigilance Department registered a crime under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’) alleging that he had received Rs.500 as bribe from one K.K. Mohanan. Mr. Chandran was suspended from service on 27.10.2006 and was reinstated in service on 01.03.2008. He retired from service on 31.03.2011 on superannuation while working as the General Extension Officer in Wayanad.

4. The Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode convicted K. Chandran vide judgment dated 29.07.2011 in CC No.13/2008 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short ‘RI’) for 2 years and a fine of Rs.5,000. Aggrieved by the same, K. Chandran filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala, which was registered as Crl. A. No.6053/2013. The appeal was admitted and the sentence was suspended in the meantime.

5. K. Chandran submitted a request before the Accountant General to release his DCRG in 2014. On not receiving a favourable response, he filed an application numbered O.A.(EKM) No.104/2014 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘KAT’), which dismissed his application on 09.12.2014 on the ground that judicial proceedings had been concluded and K. Chandran had been convicted. The issue which arose pertained to the intent and purport of Rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short ‘KSR’), which was stated to require the outcome of departmental or judicial proceedings to be concluded for the release of DCRG. Thus, if the criminal case went against K. Chandran, it had to be withheld or otherwise it had to be released. It was opined that K. Chandran being a convict and that too for receiving a bribe, could not claim entitlement to the DCRG and, thus, accepting his application would defeat the very purpose of the Rule.

6. (B) D. Alexander, another respondent in this matter allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act while he was in service and a vigilance case was initiated against him. He was suspended from service on 28.11.2003 and was reinstated in service on 29.03.2004. He retired from service on 30.04.2004 on superannuation while working as the Taluk Supply Officer of Mukundapuram, Irinjalakuda.

7. The Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur convicted D. Alexander vide judgment dated 11.07.2014 in CC No.07/2006 and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,000. An appeal was filed before the High Court of Kerala, being Crl. A. No.672/2014, the same was admitted and the sentence suspended pending the disposal of the appeal which is still pending before the High Court of Kerala.

8. D. Alexander was also aggrieved by the non-issuance of the DCRG and, thus, filed O.A. No.300 of 2015 before the KAT.

9. He submi