Judgment :- Ravikumar, J. The appellants were the respondents in W.P.(C) No.37488 of 2008 and the respondent herein was the petitioner therein. The Writ Petition was filed mainly with the prayers to quash Ext.P2 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction the withheld DCRG. amount of Rs.60,231/- and to disburse the same to the petitioner forthwith with interest at the rate of 18%. 2. The writ petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.8.2006 as a District Treasury Officer. While he was in service, he had applied for a loan to purchase a personal computer. Ext.P1 dated 11.12.2001 would reveal that the said loan was sanctioned. Admittedly, he did not avail the said sanctioned loan. However, till his retirement Ext.P1 order sanctioning the loan was not cancelled by the Government. On the wrong assumption that he had availed the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.45,000/- and had not repaid the same, a probable liability on that score was worked out as Rs.60,231/- and the same was withheld from his DCRG. All his attempts to get the said amount disbursed turned futile. It was in the said circumstances that he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.37488 of 2008. 3. Appellants 1 and 4/respondents 1 and 4 had filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition. The fact that the sanctioned loan as per Ext.P1 was not actually availed by the petitioner had not been disputed in the said counter affidavit. At the same time, they attempted to put the blame on the petitioner for not taking appropriate steps for cancellation of Ext.P1. Respondents 2 and 3 had filed a separate counter affidavit. They too, conceded the fact that the petitioner did not avail the sanctioned loan. It is a common case that Ext.P1 order sanctioning the loan was cancelled only on 22.6.2007 as per Ext.P6, i.e., about one year after the retirement of the petitioner. It was after considering the rival contentions and the admitted factual position that the amount sanctioned as per Ext.P1 was not actually availed by the petitioner that the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the appellants/respondents to disburse the amount of DCRG. withheld, viz. Rs.60,231/-together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 1.1.2007 to 10.2.2009 by way of compensation for the delayed payment of the DCRG. withheld, viz. Rs.60,231/-together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 1.1.2007 to 10.2.2009 by way of compensation for the delayed payment of the DCRG. It was observed therein that it would be open to the Government to recover the interest thus ordered to be paid to the petitioner from the officers who were responsible for the illegal withholding of payment of DCRG. on account of their failure to alert the Accountant General in time that no amount was due from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this Writ Appeal. 4. Essentially, the grievance of the appellants is confined only to that part of the judgment whereby interest has been awarded to the respondent herein. According to the appellants, there was no laches on their part and in fact the respondent/petitioner who had not encashed the sanctioned loan ought to have taken steps at the appropriate time for cancellation of Ext.P1. Since, the respondent/petitioner had represented for cancellation of Ext.P1 only in 2007, that too after his retirement, the petitioner alone is responsible for the withholding of his DCRG., and, therefore, there is no reason for saddling the liability and responsibility on others, it is contended. In short, it is the contention of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has awarded interest on a misappreciation of facts. 5. It is true that an amount of Rs.45,000/-was sanctioned to the respondent/petitioner on 11.12.2001 as per Ext.P1 on his application for loan for purchase of a personal computer. Indisputably, the said sanctioned loan was not availed by him. That being the position, he cannot be held responsible for the withholding of Rs.60,231/- from his DCRG. on the ground that he should have taken steps for getting Ext.P1 order cancelled. Admittedly, Ext.P1 order was cancelled only on 22.6.2007, after a period of one year since the retirement of the petitioner. The concerned officers cannot feign ignorance regarding the non-availing of the sanctioned loan by the respondent/petitioner and the aforesaid proceedings. At any rate they were bound to know about it. Nobody can dispute the fact that the concerned officers in a Department are bound to verify the liabilities or otherwise of an incumbent who is due to retire from service. The concerned officers cannot feign ignorance regarding the non-availing of the sanctioned loan by the respondent/petitioner and the aforesaid proceedings. At any rate they were bound to know about it. Nobody can dispute the fact that the concerned officers in a Department are bound to verify the liabilities or otherwise of an incumbent who is due to retire from service. The Kerala Service Rules provides that every Head of Department shall have a list prepared every six months, on the 1st January and 1st July each year of all gazetted and non-gazetted Government employees who are due to retire within the next 12 to 18 months of that date. A copy of every such list shall also be supplied to the Audit Officer. It follows that the date of retirement of the petitioner is known to the respondents well in advance and hence, there was no justification for the respondents for not verifying the details of Government dues, if any, for the purpose of fixing liability or issuing N.L.C. to him. Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules assumes relevance in the context. It reads thus: "The liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him." (emphasis supplied) 6. The first part of Note 3 to which emphasis is supplied would imply that possibility of quantifying liabilities before retirement should be explored seriously by the authorities concerned and that duty can be put off only if such a quantification is impossible on account of pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings or for any other legally permissible ground and any contra interpretation of the term 'if possible' would lead to arbitrariness. In this case, admittedly, the same were not verified even on the date of retirement or even when the DCRG. amount was admitted to him. It was without verifying whether the respondent/petitioner had actually availed of the sanctioned loan and on the wrong illegal presumption that he had availed of the loan, an amount of Rs.60,231/- was worked out as probable liability and the same was withheld from his DCRG. amount was admitted to him. It was without verifying whether the respondent/petitioner had actually availed of the sanctioned loan and on the wrong illegal presumption that he had availed of the loan, an amount of Rs.60,231/- was worked out as probable liability and the same was withheld from his DCRG. If a proper verification had been done prior to his retirement, the petitioner would not have been put to face the present plight. If this cannot be treated as laches on the part of the officers concerned, what else can fall in that category? Certainly, in such a situation, it will be absolutely unjustifiable to put the blame on the retiree. Admittedly, in this case, even when the amount of DCRG. due to the respondent was computed, the officers concerned failed to take note of the aspect of non-availing of the loan by the respondent. There is no justification for fixing liability based on a loan which was not actually availed by the respondent/petitioner and then saddle him with interest on the said amount. Despite such laches, the attempt on the part of the appellants was to put the blame on the petitioner. This is highly deprecative. The appellants and the officers concerned in the Department cannot escape the liability for their laches. Evidently, prior to his retirement Ext.P2 was issued to the writ petitioner. Ext.P2 is dated 8.3.2006 and as per that the Senior Accounts Officer attached to the office of the second appellant required him to remit the interest on the Personal Computer Advance presuming that he had availed it. On receipt of the same, he obtained Non-Drawal Certificate viz. Ext.P3 dated 29.4.2006 and forwarded it to the said office. That apart, Ext.P1 had cast a duty on the 4th appellant to see that the conditions thereunder were observed by the loanee and it also cast on him another duty to take disciplinary action in case the loan amount was misutilized. Therefore, it was incumbent on the officers to have made a verification after a month from its sanctioning. 7. In the circumstances, we cannot find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the Writ Petition with specific directions. In fact, according to us, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is the only plausible view that can be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the circumstances, we cannot find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the Writ Petition with specific directions. In fact, according to us, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is the only plausible view that can be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.