SHINE VARGHESE Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the complainant in a cheque case. That case has ended in conviction of the accused, which was affirmed in appeal and revision. Sentence imposed against the accused directed payment of the fine amount imposed. When such fine amount was not paid by the accused, petitioner approached the Magistrate for issuing direction to the Treasury Officer to attach the amount of fine from Death/Retirement Gratuity of the accused, who retired as a Government servant, but, whose pensionary benefits were yet to be released. Treasury Officer reported that non-liability certificate in respect of the accused/retired Government employee has not been received, but, in view of the order of attachment of the court the amount due as Death/Retirement Gratuity to the employee is withheld. Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to direct the first respondent/District Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, the authority under whom the Government employee/accused continued in service, to ascertain and finalise the liabilities of that employee and then intimate the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Government Pleader.

(2.) Order of attachment passed by the learned Magistrate directing the Treasury Officer to withhold the sum due as fine amount imposed on the accused from his Death/Retirement Gratuity benefits as a retired employee in Government service is patently unsustainable under law. No such attachment can be passed by a court of law. Rule 124 of the Kerala Service Rules Part-Ill makes it abundantly clear that the pensionary benefits of an employee cannot be attached. That rule reads thus: