IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15895 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- SOSAMMA JOSEPH, RETIRED U.D.CLERK, C.B.C.I.D., PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT N.G.O. QUARTERS, NO.D-19, KALLEPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD-678 018. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIMES, CRIME BRANCH CID HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.B.C.I.D., PALAKKAD. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT. M. R. SREELATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 15895 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as U.D. Clerk from the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Palakkad on 30.01.2008. Apparently, a special audit in the office of the 3rd respondent was conducted in relation to the period from July 2005 to March 2006 and it detected major irregularities of fraudulent withdrawal of huge amounts from the GPF Accounts. According to the petitioner, investigation further revealed that one Krishnakumar, U.D Clerk was responsible for the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of amounts and fabrication of GPF statement. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau took over the investigation of crime and a crime has been registered against Sri. Krishnakumar. 2. Petitioner's grievance is that without the Vigilance Case being proceeded with and without waiting for the completion of the investigation by the Vigilance Department, the 3rd respondent has recommended to recover an amount of Rs.4,44,259/- from the pensionary benefits due to her. This is evidenced by Exhibit-P1. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. W.P ( C) No. 15895 of 2008 2 4. Recovery from the pensionary benefits can only be done after fixing the liability of the Government Servant. This obviously requires notice to the pensioner affording her an opportunity of raising objection and being heard her on such objections. Exhibits P1 and P6 cannot be treated as substitutes for the same. The liability will have to be fixed in accordance with law. 4. Exhibits P1 and P6 need only be treated as a tentative proposal on the part of the respondents. It cannot have the effect of finally fixing the liability of the petitioner. I make it clear that if the Department proposes to recover any amounts from the petitioner as included in Exhibits P1 and P6, petitioner shall be given a notice on such proposal and shall also be afforded an opportunity of preferring her objections to such proposal. Petitioner shall then be heard and liability certificate shall be issued, if any liability is proposed to be fixed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 15895 of 2008 2