STATE OF KERALA Vs. SHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for consideration is whether a Government servant who retired while a criminal case was pending is entitled to pensionary benefits on acquittal, despite the Government having preferred an appeal against such acquittal, and the same is pending before the Court. This point arises in the context of Rule 3 of Part III, Kerala Service Rules (KSR).

(2.) The respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, retired from the service of the Water Resources Department on 31/05/2020 as Chief Engineer. The respondent was granted only a provisional pension under Rule 3A(a) of Part III, KSR due to the pendency of criminal proceedings. At the time of retirement, an appeal was pending before the High Court against the judgment, dtd. 17/10/2018, of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur, acquitting the respondent. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with the other accused, misappropriated Rs.86,558.55 by committing forgery and making false entries in the 'M' book. It was categorically found by the Vigilance Court that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent, along with the other accused, made false entries in the 'M' books. Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted. Since the respondent was not paid pensionary benefits even after her acquittal in the year 2018, she approached the Tribunal seeking the release of gratuity and pensionary benefits due to her. The Tribunal allowed her prayers. The State has come up with this original petition challenging the Tribunal's order.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, pointing out Rules 3 and 3A(a) of Part III, KSR and placing reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in The Secretary, Local Self Government and v. K. Chandran [2022 (2) KHC 523] argued that since an appeal is pending, which is a continuation of the trial proceedings, the respondent is not entitled for pension. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Chandran's case (supra) and argued that the respondent has been found innocent, and the presumption of that innocence will continue, and therefore, Rule 3 or 3A of Part III, KSR cannot be relied on to deny the pensionary benefits due to the respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that more than 3 years have lapsed since the respondent's retirement, and no liability certificate has also been issued. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to all pensionary benefits.