JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 16454/96, retired as Driver on 31st December 1992. The first respondent by Ext. P3 order dated, 21st June 1996 ordered to recover an amount of Rs. 20,305.90 from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. This amount represents the cost of damage to the vehicle which met with an accident. The petitioner approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing O.P. No. 5327/96, which resulted in Ext. P1 Judgment. In Ext. P1 Judgment, the submission of the first respondent that the non liability certificate should be issued within a month was recorded. In the present Original Petition, petitioner has sought to quash Ext. P3 and also for a direction to the respondents to disburse the amount with held from the retirement benefits. 2. The petitioner in O.P. No. 182/97 retired as Driver on 31st July 1993. The vehicle which he was driving also met with an accident. Even though, the petitioner was convicted initially, on appeal he was acquitted as per Ext. P1 Judgment. There was a claim preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased against the petitioner and the respondent. The claim was awarded by the M.A.C.T. and an amount of Rs. 50,000 was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner was granted all the pensionery benefits except D.C.R.G. Therefore this original petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to pay the gratuity amount due to the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in these Original Petitions, The stand of the respondent Corporation is that the Corporation is entitled to recover the amount of loss sustained to the Corporation on account of passing the award by the M.A.G.T. and also the loss sustained to the vehicle involved in the accident. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation sought to fortify this stand by citing two decisions of this court. A Division Bench of this Court in the ruling reported in K.S.T. Drivers Union v. K.S.R.T.C. 1988 (1) KLT 573 considered the legality of the action taken by the Corporation in ordering recovery of the loss caused to the Corporation from the salary of an employee. The Division Bench while considering the above question negatived the contention of the employee in the following terms. The Division Bench while considering the above question negatived the contention of the employee in the following terms. "If the petitioner is guilty of negligence which has resulted in loss to the Corporation, R.11 (iv) (a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules which have been adopted by the Corporation enables the Corporation to recover from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach or orders. Whereas R.15G of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act is intended to deal with the situation where the liability to third parties is required to be paid by the Corporation, R.11 (iv) (a) of the Kerala Civil Services (C.C. and A) Rules entitles the Corporation to recover from its own employees the pecuniary loss caused to it on account of the negligence or on account of breach of orders committed by its employees. The fact that the Corporation can pay the damages under R.15G of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Rules to the third parties, does not absolve the liability of the employee to reimburse the Corporation for the less he caused to the Corporation by his own negligence". 4. I do not think that the above proposition can ever be doubted. So long as the employee is in service the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules can be pressed into service in order to recover the loss sustained to the Corporation from the salary of the employee. The other ruling which was relied on by the learned Standing Counsel is Vavachan v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation 1991 (1) KLT 828 . In the above ruling , a learned Judge of this Court, Justice Sri Sankaran Naif, observed that the liability of the employer is vicarious while that of the driver is direct. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers, and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. If awards are passed against the Corporation alone, exonerating the drivers when they are liable, it will lead to unsatisfactory results. The funds of the Corporation will be dissipated, while the erring drivers are left free without constraints or consequences. That might encourage rash drivers, and lead to the depletion of funds of a public undertaking. The above ruling did not deal with the power of the Corporation to recover the loss sustained to the Corporation from the pensionary benefits of the retired employee. In fact the learned Judge was considering the liability of an employer and employee under S.110 B, of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I do not think that the above decision is helpful to sustain the action ,of the respondent in this case. 5. It is not disputed before me that the provisions contained in the Kerala Service Rules are made applicable to the employees of the K. S. R. T. C. Therefore, we have to look into the relevant provisions contained in the K. S. R. which enable the Corporation to recover the liability of an employee. Notes 2 and 3 to R.3, Part III of K. S. R. are the relevant provisions to be noticed in this respect. There is no doubt that the liability fixed against an employee which include the pensioner also can be recovered from the D. C. R. G. payable to him without any proceedings. The only safeguard is that he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain. Note 3 put an embargo on the rights of the Corporation that the liability must be fixed with a period of three years on becoming a. pensioner. 6. Though the Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that in O. P. No. 16454796, petitioner was given notice/charge sheet on 26th August 1994 and it was within three years. Because of the procedure delay, the final orders could be passed only after three years. But I do not think that the Corporation is right in making the above submission. According to me Note 3 enjoins that liabilities of an employee should be quantified and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of 3 years. Therefore, final orders regarding the fixation of liability must be passed within the above period of limitation. According to me Note 3 enjoins that liabilities of an employee should be quantified and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of 3 years. Therefore, final orders regarding the fixation of liability must be passed within the above period of limitation. The above view is also accepted by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Director of Health Services v. Paul 1992 (1) KLT 313 wherein it was held as follows: "The Note makes it clear that the liability mentioned in it must have been fixed against a person while he was in employment, and the show cause notice also must have been issued to him while he was in employment. Unless these two conditions are satisfied, there cannot be any question of recovery of any liability from the D.C.R.G. before 31st March 1986." In the above case the Division Bench was considering a case of an employee who retired before the amendment of Note 2. 7. In this connection, it is also pertinent to point out that this Court has also taken the view that the period of 3 years prescribed in Note 2 R.3 Part III of K. S. R. is only the outer limit and it does not mean that in every case, the quantification of liabilities should wait till the outer limit of three years is over. [Please see 1994 (1) KLT 669 ]. Under these circumstances, I am unable to sustain the stand of the Corporation in these cases. I also hasten to add that it should not be understood that the Corporation is not empowered to recover the loss sustained to it from the erring employees in no circumstances. These cases relate only to the recovery of loss from the D. C. R. G. beyond three years period. Therefore, the respondent Corporation is directed to disburse the amount of D. C. R. G. due to the petitioners' within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The above amount will carry interest from 1st March 1993 to the date of payment (in O. P. No. 16454/96) at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The petitioner in O. P. No. 182/97 is entitled to get an interest at the same rate from 1st October 1993 to the date of payment. Original Petitions are allowed as indicated above.