Judgment :- 1. These two Writ Petitions raise the interpretation of R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules, Note (2) thereof and Ruling No. 3 under Note (2). Although the judgment in these two cases was dictated on 171977, I felt the matter needed reconsideration and I directed the cases to be posted as 'spoken to' and heard the counsel on both sides again. 2. Since O.P. No. 5080 of 1975 has become infructuous, I shall state the facts in O.P. No. 294 of 1977. The prayer in this original petition is to quash Exts. P2, P5, P6 and P8. 3. The petitioner retired as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 4 31971. Sanction was given for the grant of pension and Death-cum-Retirement gratuity by the Government as per its order dated 10121970. 4. After retirement disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under R.16 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1960 A show cause notice was issued on 15 7 1971. It was stated therein that while the petitioner was working as a Ranger in Nadu-vathumoozhi Range during 1967, he committed irregularities and spent an excess amount of Rs. 10,343.07 from the Government fund and caused loss to the Government. The explanation filed by the petitioner was not accepted and the Chief Conservator of Forests, the second respondent, held that the petitioner was liable for the entire amount mentioned above and directed the same to be realised from the petitioner. Recovery was ordered by directing an amount of Rs 7,800/-due to the petitioner as Death-cum-Retirement gratuity to be adjusted towards this liability. Ext. P1 is this order. The third respondent, i. e., the Accountant General of Kerala, informed the petitioner on 4101973 that his death-cum-retirement gratuity was adjusted against the liability mentioned above to the extent of Rs. 7,800/-. 5. The petitioner challenged Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 1405 of 1974 before this Court. In the course of hearing, it was submitted that the Government had passed orders setting aside Ext. P1 and had passed Ext. P2 order in its place. Ext. P2 is to the effect that the charge memo issued by the second respondent cannot legally stand and that de novo action had to be taken under Note 2 of R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. This was because Ext. P1 and had passed Ext. P2 order in its place. Ext. P2 is to the effect that the charge memo issued by the second respondent cannot legally stand and that de novo action had to be taken under Note 2 of R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. This was because Ext. P was issued under S.16 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, after petitioners retirement O P. No. 1405 of 1974 was disposed of without deciding any question on merits and without precluding the petitioner from urging all objections available to him before the Chief Conservator of Forests or before the Government. 6. After this, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 10,343 07 under Note 2 of R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules This is Ext. P-3 which is dated 15-1-1976 The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 24-2-1976. He stated that he cannot be proceeded against under Note 2 to R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules. His explanation is Ext. P4; This was rejected as per Ext. P5 order dated 5-4-1976. 7. On the same day by another proceeding the second respondent ordered to recover from the petitioner an amount of R.7,173.90 as his liability towards the loss he is said to have caused to the department. This order is Ext. P6. It was for the first time that the petitioner was notified about this liability. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-31976. 8. After the disposal of O.P. No. 1405 of 1974, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 8 61976 against Exts. P5 and P6 orders of the second respondent. Ext. P7 is the appeal memo. The appeal has not so far been disposed of, obviously because it is not a statutory appeal. Now the present position is that the petitioner is denied his Death-cum-Retirement gratuity. Ext. P8 is a fresh order. By this order, an amount of Rs 193.54 being the monetary value equivalent to the unexpired portion of the increment bar was also ordered to be deducted from his Death-Cum-Retirement gratuity. The petitioner challenges Exts. P2, P5, P6 and P8 orders in this writ petition. 9. The short point that falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the petitioner could be proceeded against for the amounts alleged to be due by him by adjustment of the Death-Cum-Retiremmt gratuity. The petitioner challenges Exts. P2, P5, P6 and P8 orders in this writ petition. 9. The short point that falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the petitioner could be proceeded against for the amounts alleged to be due by him by adjustment of the Death-Cum-Retiremmt gratuity. The Government originally committed a mistake by proceeding against the petitioner under R.16 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. This mistake was rectified by passing a subsequent order on 0-12-1975. The petitioner retired on 4-3-1971. Four years had by then elapsed. The Government could have easily realised the amount due from the petitioner even after retirement from the pension by invoking R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules However, Government could not do so since the proviso to Rule (b) (ii) to R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules lays down that amounts due to the Government can be recovered from pension only till the expiry of four years from retirement. In this case the only course open to the Government to recover the amount was only from the Death-cum-Retirement gratuity. 10. It is this method of realisation that has caused difficulty in this case.1 shall read Note (2) Ruling No. 3 to Note (2) for a clear appreciation of the questions involved: "Note [2]. The word pension used in this rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee can be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule but after giving the employee concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. RULING No. 3 The Note 2 above does not mean that the employee's consent should be obtained for recovering the liabilities from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him. What is contemplated is only a communication of such liabilities to him so as to enable him to submit his explanation before the recovery is effected. It should be specifically stated in the communication that if no reply is received with in 30 days of its issue, it will be presumed that the employee has no explanation to offer and that further action will be taken on that basis." It is made clear in Note 2 that the word 'pension' does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. It should be specifically stated in the communication that if no reply is received with in 30 days of its issue, it will be presumed that the employee has no explanation to offer and that further action will be taken on that basis." It is made clear in Note 2 that the word 'pension' does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Therefore even tour years after the retirement of a Government servant, steps could be taken for recovery of amounts due by him against Death-cum-Retirement gratuity But Note 2 makes it clear that liabilities can be recovered from the death-cum-retirtment gratuity payable without departmental or judicial proceedings only if such liability is fixed, and only after giving the employee concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. From Ruling No. 3 it is clear that the consent of the employees is not necessary for recovering government dues from the death-cum-retirement gratuity. AH that is necessary is that he should be given a notice and the Government should wait for 30 days. If within 30 days no reply is received, it shall be presumed that the employee has no explanation and further action will be taken on that basis. 11. There was considerable argument at the bar as to whether 'employee' in Note 2 takes in a Government servant who has retired. Normally an employee means a person who is in the service. When a Government Servant retires, the contractual relationship between him and the Government ceases and it would not be correct to say that an employee includes a pensioner also. Any way this question need not detain me. Under Note 2 to R.3 the position appears to be that the liability of the employee should be fixed before his retirement. For fixation of his liability he should have been given notice and the Government should have waited for 30 days. All that I have to consider in this case is whether the liability was fixed as mentioned in Note 2 read with Ruling No. 3. 12. The Government fixed the amount due from the petitioner at Rs. 10,343.70, in 1967. The first time a notice as contemplated in Note 2 of R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules was issued to toe petitioner is on 15-1-1976, and that is Ext. P3. The other relevant notice is Ext. P6 dated 12 3 1976. Both these notices were issued after the retirement by the petitioner. 10,343.70, in 1967. The first time a notice as contemplated in Note 2 of R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules was issued to toe petitioner is on 15-1-1976, and that is Ext. P3. The other relevant notice is Ext. P6 dated 12 3 1976. Both these notices were issued after the retirement by the petitioner. The explanations submitted by the petitioner were rejected and the Death-cum-Retirement gratuity was withheld. From these facts, it is clear that the liability was not fixed before retirement nor notice under the rule issued in time. 13. As I see Note 2, liability can be fixed in terms of Note 2 only after the issuance of a notice to the Government servant and waiting for 30 days for his explanation. This was not done before he retired. It follows, therefore, that the death-cum-retirement gratuity cannot be directed to be adjusted for any liability which got fixed only after his retirement. This, according to me, is the proper interpretation to be given to Note 2 read with Ruling No. 3 of the Kerala Service Rules. 14. The Government Pleader forcefully contended that this construction would render Note 2 ineffective. According to him notice contemplated under Note 2 can be issued even after the retirement of the Government servant. I find difficulty in accepting this contention. He admits that a notice is necessary. According to him under Note 2 the Government can fix the liability at any time and call upon the government servant to pay such amount. The notice contemplated under Note 2 is the notice calling upon the Government servant to recover the amount. This contention is full of disastrous consequences. This would be to give an arbitrary power to the Government against which the government servant will have no remedy after retirement. The object of Note 2 is entirely different. The mention in R.3 that the consent of the Government servant is not necessary for recovery by adjustment of the amount against the death¬cum-retirement gratuity itself postulates that the Government servant should be told about the fixation of the liability and bis explanation invited, giving him time f t 30 days. This means that fixation of liability can be done only 30 days after a government servant receives the notice after the amount is quantified. This means that fixation of liability can be done only 30 days after a government servant receives the notice after the amount is quantified. The notice contemplated under Note 2, according to me, is the notice to the Government servant inviting his explanation showing cause against fixation and not a notice telling him that the amount will be recovered This submission of the Government Pleader cannot therefore be sustained. In the result, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this petition. All the orders have been passed without giving him proper notice fixing his liability. I quash Exts P2, P5, P6 and P8 in O. P. No. 294 of 1977 and I direct the respondent to pass expeditious orders within three months of receipt of this judgment to implement Exts. P1 and P2 In view of the judgment in O.P. No. 294 of 1977, O.P.No.5080 of 1975 has become infructuous and is dismissed I also direct the respondent to disburse the death-cum-¬retirement gratuity and arrears of pay by making calculations within three months from the date of receipt this judgment. I thank Sri E. Subramoni for the assistance rendered by him in helping me in this case. The parties are directed to bear their costs.