Siri Jagan, J.

Perceiving a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this court, viz., Board of Revenue v. Parameswaran Nair, (2000 (1) KLT 227 and Jayarajan v. State of Kerala (2001 (3) KLT 929 on the interpretation of Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) on the issue as to whether the Government can withdraw or withhold pension under the said rule as a punishment on a retired government servant, even if the grave misconduct proved against the pensioner does not involve pecuniary loss to the Government, a learned single Judge of this court has referred this original petition for the decision of a Full Bench of this court to resolve the apparent conflict between the two decisions. It is on such reference this original petition has come up before us for decision.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this original petition are as follows:-

The petitioner retired from service while holding the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the Kerala Police Department. On the date previous to his retirement, i.e., 30.12.1995, a memo of charges was served on him alleging that while he was holding the post of station house officer, Balaramapuram, during the period from 6.10.1987 to 30.11.1987, he had committed serious official misconduct in so far as he failed to register a case on the basis of a reference made by the Circle Inspector of Police, Vizhinjam. In his explanation to the charge sheet, the petitioner took the contention that since he is no longer a Government employee, Rule 3 of Part III of KSR cannot be invoked against him to continue the proceedings in view of the fact that the allegations did not involve any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him in continuation of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated prior to his retirement and by Ext.P2 enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Since the petitioner had retired from service, by Ext.P3 show cause notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause why the punishment of reduction of Rs.50/- per month from his pension for a period of 10 years should not be imposed on him. The petitioner filed a reply, Ext.P4. Since the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the punishment of reduction of pension of Rs.50/- per month for a period of 10 years was imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 charge sheet, Ext.P3 enquiry report, Ext.P5 order imposing punishment and Ext.P6 order sanctioning pension to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1025/- per month instead of Rs.1075/- per month which was the pension due to him otherwise. While challenging the orders on merit, i.e., on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to prove the misconduct of the petitioner, the petitioner, inter alia, contended that since the allegations against him which resulted in the order of punishment, did not involve any monetary loss to the Government, the Government had no jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings invoking Rule 3 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules.

3. The Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that under Rule 3, the Government had the right to continue the departmental proceedings under Rule 3, and has the power to impose on the petitioner the punishment of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period, even if the proved misconduct did not involve any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, since by Rule 3 the Government reserved to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing pension as a punishment, in addition to the right of recovery from pension any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if in a departmental proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or