JUDGMENT : P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J The above Original Petition is filed against the order dated 18.6.2015 in T.A.No.45 of 2013 on the file of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the Tribunal). The applicant before the Tribunal is the petitioner herein and the respondents before the Tribunal are the respondents herein, (hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance with their rank before the Tribunal). 2. Applicant is a retired Commercial Tax Officer and she retired from service on 31.1.2002. On the eve of her retirement, she was served with Ext P1 Memo of charges dated 18.1.2002 proposing to take disciplinary action against her for dereliction of duty, serious negligence and carelessness. The allegation was that, she accepted monthly returns of a registered dealer without proof of payment of admitted amount of tax. The dealer filed the returns for the months of April, 2001 on 15.5.2001, May, 2001 on 15.6.2001, June, 2001 on 17.7.2001 and July, 2001 on 16.8.2001. The amount covered by these returns comes to Rs.63,84,194.75. As per the Rules, the dealer has to file proof of payment of admitted tax along with the returns. But there was delay on the part of the applicant to detect the same and notice in Form 14 D was issued under the Kerala Sale Tax Rules belatedly. 3. When Ext P1 memo of charge was received, the petitioner sent Ext P2 reply before the 2nd respondent on 6.2.2002. She submitted in her representation that, her entire service was unblemished. She stated in the representation that, the staff did not bring to her notice that the dealer filed the returns without proof of payment of admitted amount of tax. Therefore, she admitted that there was inadvertent delay of 45 days on the part of the applicant to issue Form 14 D notice. 4. Since, there was no further action taken after Ext P2, the applicant submitted Ext P3 representation on 4.12.2002 praying to release the pensionary benefit due to her including Commuted Value of Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity which was followed by Ext P4 representation dated 5.6.2003 praying to release the terminal benefits due to her. While so, the Government as per Ext P5 notice dated 30.5.2003 called the applicant for a hearing on 24.6.2003. The applicant appeared and submitted Ext P6 argument note which was followed by Ext P7 supplementary argument note. While so, the Government as per Ext P5 notice dated 30.5.2003 called the applicant for a hearing on 24.6.2003. The applicant appeared and submitted Ext P6 argument note which was followed by Ext P7 supplementary argument note. The applicant also filed Ext P8 representation praying to release the pension and commuted value of pension to her with an undertaking to refund the amount in future, if found necessary. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext P9 show cause notice dated 1.3.2004 proposing to reduce her monthly pension by 200/-per month under Rule 3 Part III KSR. In the said notice, it is stated that the Government has suffered a loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.63,84,194.75 because of the delay on the part of the applicant to issue notice in Form 14D. The dealer closed down the business and left the State and therefore, the possibility of recovery of the amount from the dealer who is from outside the State is very remote. 5. The applicant submitted Ext P10 reply dated 27.5.2004. She explained reason for the delay in issuing Form 14 D notice and reiterated her contentions raised by her in the reply to the Memo of charges. Meanwhile, as per Ext P11 dated 16.4.2004, the 2nd respondent sanctioned pensionary benefits payable to the applicant. While so, the applicant was again served with Ext P12 notice dated 27.1.2006 proposing to withhold Rs.500/-per month from her pension and also to recover the entire DCRG amount. The revised proposal was issued based on the advise of the Public Service Commission(PSC). Thereafter, Ext P13 order dated 15.12.2007 was issued by the Government to recover Rs.500/-per month from the pension of the applicant and also to withhold her entire DCRG under Rule 3 Part III KSR. Applicant also produced Ext P13(a) which was the advise given by the PSC in the matter to the Government. Challenging Ext P12, the applicant originally filed Writ Petition before the High Court, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal. Later, the Writ Petition was amended and incorporated a challenge against Ext P13 also. Therefore, the applicant contended that a direction may be issued to release the DCRG amount to her with interest and to set aside the order recovering Rs.500/-per month from the pension of the applicant. 6. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed counter affidavit supporting Exts P12 and P13 . Therefore, the applicant contended that a direction may be issued to release the DCRG amount to her with interest and to set aside the order recovering Rs.500/-per month from the pension of the applicant. 6. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed counter affidavit supporting Exts P12 and P13 . Of course, in para 14 of the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has stated that since the lapses on the part of the applicant were not willful, the Government decided to take a lenient view in the matter and addressed the PSC to reconsider their earlier view. But there is no such statement in the counter affidavit filed by the Government. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application, rejecting the contentions of the applicant. Aggrieved by the above, this Original Petition is filed by the applicant. 7. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 8. The counsel for the petitioner attacked Exts P12 and P13 mainly on two grounds. According to the counsel, the recovery of Rs.500/-per month from the pension of applicant based on the advise of the PSC is unsustainable. According to the counsel, Ext P13(a) response of the PSC is with respect to a mandatory consultation; which is not binding on the government. The word 'consultation' itself shows that it is not binding on the Government. Moreover, it is also contended that, in the light of specific bar in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR, the recovery of DCRG is illegal after a period of three years from the date of retirement, especially when there is no quantification of the liability by the authorities. 9. After hearing both sides, the following questions arise for consideration. (i). Whether the Government is bound to accept the reply of the PSC when consulted under Proviso (d) to Rule 3 Part III KSR and Regulation 6 of PSC Consultation Regulation 1967 or whether the Government can take independent decision. (ii). Whether the DCRG of a pensioner can be withheld after three years of his retirement, when there is no quantification of the liability. 10. Point No.1:-Rule 3 Part III of KSR says that, the Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period. (ii). Whether the DCRG of a pensioner can be withheld after three years of his retirement, when there is no quantification of the liability. 10. Point No.1:-Rule 3 Part III of KSR says that, the Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period. The Government also reserves to itself, the right of ordering the recovery from a pension, of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Clause (d) of the proviso to Rule 3 Part III KSR says that the PSC shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Regulation 6 of Kerala Public Service Commission(Consultation)Regulation, 1967 says that, it shall not be necessary for the PSC to be consulted on any disciplinary matter affecting a person serving in connection with the affairs of the State except, on the Government proposing to pass an original order imposing any of the punishments mentioned in Regulation 6(1)(a)(i) to (v). Regulation 6 (a)(ii) says that consultation is necessary if recovery is from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to the Central Government or a local authority by negligence or breach of orders. Rule 15 of Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 15 (14) says that, orders passed by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the Government servant, who shall be supplied with a copy of the advise, if any, given by the PSC and where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advise of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance is to be given. 11. From a combined reading of the above provisions it is clear that what is intended is a consultation before orders are passed to recover any amount from pension of a pensioner. The word 'consultation' is a process which requires meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the material facts and points involved to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution (P.Ramanatha Iyyers Concise Law Dictionary, 4th edition 2012). The word 'consultation' is a process which requires meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the material facts and points involved to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution (P.Ramanatha Iyyers Concise Law Dictionary, 4th edition 2012). Proviso (d) of Rule 3 Part III KSR says that “the public service commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed”. That means the consultation is mandatory. But that does not mean that the Government is bound to accept the reply of the PSC when consulted as per Rule 3 Part III KSR before ordering recovery from the pension of a pensioner for the reasons mentioned in the Rule. After getting the opinion of the PSC, after consultation, the Government has to take an independent decision. That means, the consultation with PSC is mandatory for taking action under Rule 3 Part III KSR in the instances mentioned in it. But, the Government is not bound to act upon the reply submitted by the PSC. 12. The Government is not an obedient servant of PSC to accept the reply given by them when consulted as per proviso (d) of Rule 3 Part III KSR. We get support for this proposition from a reading of Rule 15 of Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Rule 15(14) says that, where the disciplinary authority is not accepting the advise of the PSC, a brief statement of the reason for such non-acceptance is to be furnished to the Government servant. That means, the Government has to consider the facts and circumstances of each case along with the opinion of the PSC obtained after consultation and thereafter take a final decision. Hence, it is clear that, consultation with PSC for taking action under Rule 3 Part III KSR is mandatory, but the Government is not bound by such a reply received from PSC. 13. In this case, Ext P13 (a) is the reply sent by the PSC to the Government when consulted, before ordering recovery of the pension of the petitioner. Ext P13(a) contains two orders dated 13.12.2004 & 24.3.2007. The Government as per letter dated 21.7.2004 consulted the PSC for their opinion regarding the tentative decision of the Government to reduce the pension of the petitioner by Rs.200/-per month on charge of gross dereliction of duty and sought the advise of the PSC. Ext P13(a) contains two orders dated 13.12.2004 & 24.3.2007. The Government as per letter dated 21.7.2004 consulted the PSC for their opinion regarding the tentative decision of the Government to reduce the pension of the petitioner by Rs.200/-per month on charge of gross dereliction of duty and sought the advise of the PSC. The Commission examined the case in detail with the connected records and advised the Government. Relevant portion of Ext P13(a) dated 13.12.2004 is extracted here under: The Commission examined the case in detail with the connected records and advise the Government as follows: 1. The punishment should be awarded by the Government since the delinquent officer has already retired from service. 2. Reduction in pension should be Rs.500/-permanently. 3. The loss sustained to Government should be recovered from the delinquent after giving notice. 4. All retirement benefits to the delinquent officer should be withheld until the loss sustained is fully recovered. 14. A reading of the above letter itself will show that, it is only an advise of the Commission. Thereafter, the Government felt that the punishment proposed as above is excessive. Hence, the Government requested the PSC to reconsider the earlier recommendation. We fail to understand, why the Government issued such a request to the PSC once again, when the reply dated 13.12.2004 of the PSC is available. The Government only need to consult the PSC and if a report which is not acceptable to the Government is received from the PSC it is the duty of the Government to decide the issue independently after going through the facts and circumstances, including the reply. The only requirement would be to show the reasons for differing with the decision of the PSC; especially in cases where the Government intends to be harsher than that advised by the PSC. The Government after examination of the case felt that the punishment proposed to the petitioner is excessive on certain grounds and requested the PSC to reconsider the earlier recommendation. The request made, according to us is an abdication of the powers inherent in the Government. 15. The Government requested the PSC to reconsider the matter on following grounds which is extracted in the reply dated 24.3.2007 of the PSC. 1. The request made, according to us is an abdication of the powers inherent in the Government. 15. The Government requested the PSC to reconsider the matter on following grounds which is extracted in the reply dated 24.3.2007 of the PSC. 1. There is no material to show that the returns un-accompanied by the proof of payment of tax relating to April-July 2001 were timely brought to the notice of the delinquent officer by the person who received the returns in the office or the concerned section clerk. 2. The role of the official who received the said returns and concerned section clerk had totally escaped examination. 3. The relevant assessment records were meanwhile transferred to another assessing authority by the Deputy Commissioner. The delinquent officer ceased to be the assessing authority of the concerned dealer from the day of the transfer of the file. Therefore the delinquent officer could not be held responsible for the non issuance of Form 14 D for 07/01. 4. Admittedly there was some delay in issuing Form No:14 D. In respect of 04/01, the delay is less than one and half months. It is less than a fortnight in respect of month 05/01. The delay in respect of June 01 is less than a month. 5. The delinquent officer had issued garnishee notice in Form No:16 to the banker on 17.08.2001 (though very hastily). This is the strongest action possible under the KGST Act. 6. Admittedly there was no source for realizing the defaulted amount as all steps taken for recovery were unfruitful. 7. The Assistant Commissioner on receipt of the transferred file had immediately initiated recovery proceedings. So the allegation that the delinquent officer had not brought the fact of default to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner is not justified. 8. The Deputy Commissioner had reported that there was no possibility to recover the defaulted amount as the dealer is a company and having no asset. It is seen from the records that the dealer had immediately stopped business and left the state as if default had been pre-planned. There is no mention that the defaulter had transferred any asset from the second fortnight of May 2001 and the delay in issuance of Form 14 D actually prevented realization of the defaulted amount. 9. It is seen from the records that the dealer had immediately stopped business and left the state as if default had been pre-planned. There is no mention that the defaulter had transferred any asset from the second fortnight of May 2001 and the delay in issuance of Form 14 D actually prevented realization of the defaulted amount. 9. From the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is not correct to say that the delinquent officer had deliberately failed to collect the admitted tax of Rs.63.84 lakhs 10. Admittedly there was lack of vigilance and supervisory lapses on the part of the delinquent but this does not justify severe penalty. 16. Hence the Government requested to reconsider the earlier recommendation and sought for the advice of the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission re-examined the case in detail and forwarded the following conclusions. The fresh grounds raised by the Government to reconsider the recommendation of the punishment by Commission as to excessive doesn't merit any consideration for the following reasons. (1) It is the bounden duty of the assessing authority to be watchful and she ought to have watched the transactions by enquiry as well as personal contact with all potential files and clients to safeguard State Revenue. (2) She should have mentioned the huge amount due from the assessee in the records when the assessment records were transferred to Special Circle III on 07.09.2001. (3) She should have initiated timely Revenue Recovery steps and if she had done so, the amount due could have been recovered. She utterly failed in discharging her duty which amounts to grave dereliction and serious official misconduct which led to the loss of Revenue of more than Rs. 63 lakhs to the state Exchequer. As there is no reason to take a lenient view in this regard, the Commission disagree with the proposal of the Government and stick to its earlier advice and advice the Government accordingly. 17. Based on Ext P13(a), Ext P13 order was passed by the Government. There is no independent consideration by the Government based on the reply of the PSC. 17. Based on Ext P13(a), Ext P13 order was passed by the Government. There is no independent consideration by the Government based on the reply of the PSC. The Government in Ext P13 simply said that, having considered the various aspects of the issue, the Government has decided to accept the advise of PSC and issued a revised show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter, the Government decided to order recovery of Rs.500/-per month from the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III KSR. 18. A reading of Ext P13 will show that, there is no independent consideration of the facts and circumstances along with the reply of PSC before imposing recovery from the pension of the petitioner. The Government actually accepted the reply of PSC. Originally the Government consulted with the PSC and obtained a report. The Government ought to have decided independently based on that report itself. The Government felt that, the punishment proposed is excessive on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 14 above. After such a definite conclusion, the Government erred in seeking the views of the PSC once again. Moreover, no such second report is contemplated as per the Rules. Therefore, the blanket acceptance of Ext P13(a) reply of the PSC by the Government while ordering recovery from the pension of the petitioner is illegal. 19. In Ext P9 show cause notice, the proposal of the Government is to recover Rs.200/-per month from the pension of the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III KSR. After considering reply of the petitioner and after considering the reply dated 13.12.2004 of the PSC, the Government found that a lenient view is necessary in the case of the petitioner especially for the reasons extracted in paragraph 14 above. The Government erred in consulting the PSC again and relying on the reply of the PSC as an obedient servant. After going through the facts and circumstances, and the reply submitted by the petitioner, and also the conclusions of the Government extracted in paragraph 14 above, we are of the opinion that, recovery of Rs.200/-per month from the pension of the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III KSR is the penalty proposed by the Government. After going through the facts and circumstances, and the reply submitted by the petitioner, and also the conclusions of the Government extracted in paragraph 14 above, we are of the opinion that, recovery of Rs.200/-per month from the pension of the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III KSR is the penalty proposed by the Government. Though the PSC had recommended a harsher penalty, the Government had valid reasons to take a lenient view, but without passing an order to that effect, the Government consulted the PSC again; which results in an abdication of the powers inherent in the Government. We hence are of the definite view that what has been originally proposed by the Government and reiterated, after initial consultation with the PSC, showing valid reasons, is the final order of imposition of penalty as made by the Government and we direct so. 20. Point No.(ii):-As far as the recovery of DCRG also, the Government erred in accepting the view of the PSC which is against the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2002. Ext P13 order to withhold the entire DCRG of the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III KSR was passed on 15.12.2007. There is a bar for the same in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR. Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR says that liability 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 3 years on becoming pensioner. The liability of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him. From a reading of Rule 3 Part III KSR, it is clear that the recovery is possible only from pension. But in Ext P13 the DCRG is withheld invoking Rule 3 Part III KSR after 3 years of retirement of the petitioner. In State of Kerala and another v. R.Muraleedharan ( 2015(3) KHC page 735) a Division Bench of this Court observed that the recovery under Rule 3 Part III KSR is possible only if there is a departmental or judicial proceedings in which computation of the loss is determined. In Somarajan Nair C.V v State of Kerala and other (2015(2)KLT 753) a Division Bench of this Court held that the recovery of DCRG is permissible only if it is provided in Kerala Service Rules. In Somarajan Nair C.V v State of Kerala and other (2015(2)KLT 753) a Division Bench of this Court held that the recovery of DCRG is permissible only if it is provided in Kerala Service Rules. Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III of KSR and also the terms of Rule 116 fixes a time limit for such an action, of three years from the date of retirement. In Pappachan S v. State of Kerala & others (2008(4)KLT 676) another Division Bench of this Court held that whatever may be the procedural flaws that may be alleged against the fixation of liability, after three years, the loss caused by an employee while in service can be recovered from him after he becomes a pensioner by instituting a civil suit. We make a further caveat that it can only be by a civil suit and not otherwise. The period of limitation for the Government for instituting such a suit is 30 years under the Limitation Act. The Court also noticed that, by invoking the provisions of the Kerala Public Accounts Act, any liability from a pensioner can be recovered. So it is not a case where, after the time limit is over, the liability is obliterated and no recovery is permissible. 21. In the light of the above dictum, the withholding of DCRG of the petitioner as per Ext P13 is also unsustainable. But liberty is to be granted to the Government for filing civil suit, if they are advised so to do. 22. In the light of the discussion made above, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. Moreover, Ext P13 order to recover Rs.500/-per month from the pension of the petitioner is to be reduced to Rs.200/-and the petitioner is entitled to entire DCRG. Hence, this OP(KAT) is partly allowed. The order dated 18.6.2015 in T.A.No. 45 of 2013 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapurm is set aside. Ext P13 order (G.O. (Rt.)No.1056/07/TD dated 15.12.2007) of the Government is modified and it is ordered that Rs.200/-per month can be recovered from the pension of the petitioner instead of Rs.500/-per month ordered. The petitioner is entitled the entire DCRG amount and the same should be disbursed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is entitled the entire DCRG amount and the same should be disbursed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that the Government is free to approach the Civil Court, if advised so to recover the loss, if any, sustained to the Government because of the misconduct of the petitioner; but that shall not be a reason to delay disbursement of DCRG.