SADASIVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the Administrative Assistant in the district Police Office, Wyanad. He retired from service on 30-6-1985 after serving the department for more than 33 years. THE authorities did not issue non-liability certificate. So he could not draw the amount due byway of death-cum-retirement gratuity. THErefore he has approached this court inter alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the non-liability certificate.

(2.) THE short facts that are germane for the decision of this original petition are the following:- On 13-6-1985 the Inspector General of Police issued a memo of charges alleging that the petitioner caused a loss of Rs. 751. 60 to the State while he was working as Senior Superintendent in the district Police Office, Idukki during the period 1982-83. THE allegation was that while he was working as Senior Superintendent in the District Police office at Idukki he approved the proceedings according sanction to incur an expenditure of Rs. 8,814/- to M/s. Jayaraj Tyres towards the charges for retreading tyres without deducting a sum of Rs. 751. 60 which had to be deducted by way of penalty towards belated delivery of tyres after retreading. Petitioner submitted written explanation. He stated that the alleged loss can be recovered from the security deposit made by M/s. Jayaraj Tyres. On the basis of that representation, the Director General of police suggested to Government to withhold an amount of Rs. 751. 60 from the D. C. R. G. of the petitioner which can be disbursed if realised from the firm. THE Government is seen to have not accepted the suggestion. THEy provisionally decided to recover the amount of rs. 751. 60 from the pension admissible to the petitioner in 3 monthly instalments under R. 3 of Part-III Kerala Service Rules. Accordingly, Ext. P5 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to state why the said decision should not be implemented. THE petitioner filed Ext. P6 written statement of objection on 8-7-1986 to the said notice. Since no further order was issued by the Government, petitioner has filed this original petition on 22-3-1987.

(3.) THE proceedings initiated against the petitioner was continued after his retirement for recovering the loss sustained by the government from pension due to the petitioner. THE disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner prior to his retirement was continued in regard to with-holding or withdrawing pension or of ordering recovery from pension by reason of the mis-conduct or negligence committed by the petitioner during the period of service. Government had not initiated any action against the petitioner for recovering any amount from the D. C. R. G. due to him. This aspect is evident from all the orders of Government including the final order namely, Ext. R2 (b ). In such a situation, there was no justification for withholding the D. C. R. G. Substantial amount due to the petitioner by way of d. C. R. G. has been withheld by the Government for no justifiable cause. Ext. R2 (b) dated 2-5-1987, as stated earlier, directed recovery of Rs. 751. 60 in 3 instalments from the final pension admissible to the petitioner. By that order the Director General of Police was directed to issue non-liability certificate subject to that order at the earliest. More than an year has lapsed from the date of that order. Non-liability certificate has not so far been issued to the petitioner.