Judgment :- 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. One Deputy Secretary to the Home Department has sworn to a counter affidavit on behalf of the State Government. The contentions raised therein are that the petitioner was responsible for the over-payment to the Tyre retreading firm at Calicut, that the charges levelled against the petitioner as per Ext. 3. One Deputy Secretary to the Home Department has sworn to a counter affidavit on behalf of the State Government. The contentions raised therein are that the petitioner was responsible for the over-payment to the Tyre retreading firm at Calicut, that the charges levelled against the petitioner as per Ext. P1 have been proved, that the Government since awarded him the punishment of recovery from his pension Rs. 751.60, that the Director General of Police forwarded the enquiry report and related records to Government for disposal of the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner as per R.3 Part-III. K. S. R., that the Government examined the proposal of the first respondent to withhold Rs. 751.60 from Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner, that the non-liability certificate of the petitioner was withheld as disciplinary action was pending against him at the time of his retirement that the petitioner who had committed gross negligence in discharge of his official duties and caused loss of money to the Government cannot claim any protection of Ext.P7, that the delay in finalisation of the disciplinary action was in-evitable and occasioned due to strict observance of rules, that the terminal payments will be expedited as per the Government order. 4. Ext.R2(b) is the copy of G.O. (Rt) 1233/87/Home dated 2-5-1987. That order shows that the Government have directed a sum of Rs. 751.60 to be recovered in 3 monthly instalments from the final pension admissible to Sri A. Sadasivan as provided by R.3 of Part-III K. S. R. Government further ordered that Rs. 251.60 will be recovered in the first instalment and Rs. 250/- each in the next two instalments. The amount so recovered has been directed to be reimbursed to him in the event of that amount being recovered from M/s Jayaraj Tyres, Calicut, as per the terms of the contract entered into between the Government and that firm. The above Government Order further directed the Director General of Police to issue non-liability certificate subject to the above conditions. 5. 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 above Government Order further directed the Director General of Police to issue non-liability certificate subject to the above conditions. 5. 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. 6. Ext.P7 circular issued by the Government states:? "The documents necessary for the sanctioning of pension and gratuity should be prepared sufficiently earlier so that payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day." In the instant case, the above provision of the circular was honoured by its breach. As stated earlier, the petitioner retired on 30-6-1985. On 23-7-1985 the Director General of Police by Ext.P3 communication requested the Government to issue necessary orders for withholding an amount of Rs. 751.60 from D.C.R.G. which can be disbursed if realised from the firm as requested in this earlier letter dated 21-8-1984. The Government did not pass any order on that suggestion made by the Director General of Police. On account of the lethargy shown by the Government, the petitioner could not get the D.C.R.G. If prompt action was taken by the Government he could have been paid the D.C.R.G. after deducting a sum of Rs. 751.60. The Government did not pass any order on that suggestion made by the Director General of Police. On account of the lethargy shown by the Government, the petitioner could not get the D.C.R.G. If prompt action was taken by the Government he could have been paid the D.C.R.G. after deducting a sum of Rs. 751.60. No explanation is forthcoming from the Government in not resorting to such a course. Even by Ext.R2 (b) Government have not directed any amount to be deducted from the D.C.R.G. They have ordered the recovery of the above amount in 3 instalments from pension due to the petitioner. In this situation, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was illegally denied the benefit of D.C.R.G. for no fault of his. He is therefore entitled to the entire D.C.R.G. together with 12% interest on that amount from 1-7-1985 till date of payment vide State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (AIR. 1986 SC. 356). Status Approve Pending 7. Ext.P7 circular No. 31/85/Fin dated 10-4-1985 provides:? "If in any case Government is forced to pay penal interest due to specific lapse on the part of any officer, he will be held responsible for it and the amount will be recouped from him." The instant case is a fit one where the said provision has to be pressed into service by the Government. As stated earlier, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner before his retirement. That action was continued for the limited purpose of recovering the damage sustained by the Government from the pension due to the petitioner. Such a course was the only legal course which the Government could adopt (Vide Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1979 K.L.T. 80) and George v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT. 222). The withholding of the D.C.R.G. was thus against the provisions of Kerala Service Rules and all notions of law. So the Government should find the person who was responsible for the non-issue of non-liability certificate preventing the petitioner from drawing the D.C.R.G. Such person must be made responsible for the interest now directed to be paid. The original petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue the non-liability certificate authorising the petitioner to draw the D.C.R.G. together with interest at 12% per annum from 1-7-1985 till the date of payment.