Judgment :- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner on the verge of retirement from Police Service faced an enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. That came out with a report showing that he had amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, including by way of gifts in his name and in the name of his relatives. He replied to those findings by taking the stand that those gifts etc. could be traced to different origins, which can be pointed out. The competent authority showed the courtesy of permitting those transactions to be included as income. Thereby, further proceedings for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act stood closed. The Government came to the conclusion that on the admitted and shown facts, the petitioner is to be held as not having served the Government satisfactorily during the entire span of service. For this, the Government, in its wisdom, imposed a reduction of `100/- from pension per month. Nothing more! 2. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Government; got worsted at the hands of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and is hence, here. The only plea that was raised before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was not given copies of materials relied on against him and also certain other proceedings. The Tribunal, in our view, was fully justified in saying that the action having been on the admissions of the petitioner himself, and the transactions relied on by the Government being those which the petitioner himself has characterized as traceable to lawful origin, which can be pointed out, there was no vitiating element in the procedure adopted by the Government or in the enquiry. We do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned decision of the Tribunal. 3. We are also in complete agreement with the views of the Tribunal that the decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala [ 1994 (1) KLT 716 ] is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decisions, particularly, Jayarajan v. State of Kerala [ 2001(3) KLT 929 ] and Govindan Nair v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 605]. 3. We are also in complete agreement with the views of the Tribunal that the decision in Joseph v. State of Kerala [ 1994 (1) KLT 716 ] is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decisions, particularly, Jayarajan v. State of Kerala [ 2001(3) KLT 929 ] and Govindan Nair v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 605]. Joseph's case proceeded on the footing that pecuniary loss to the Government is a condition precedent for taking action under Rule 3 Part III KS & SSR and therefore, a report under Rule 3 cannot be used for action under Rule 59(b) in a case where there is no pecuniary loss to the Government. In view of Jayarajan and Govindan Nair, that is no more good law. In the result, this original petition fails and is hence dismissed in limine.