Fairness in administrative processes is essential, and recovery decisions must follow due legal procedures to uphold the principles of natural justice.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner retired as Overseer from Kerala State Electricity Board Limited on 31.05.2021. Ext.P1 charge memo and Ext.P4 additional charge memo were issued against him. The petitioner was suspended from service and later reinstated. Written statement of defence of the petitioner was submitted as per Exts.P2 and P5. The enquiry was conducted in an unfair manner, contends the petitioner. The 4^th respondent issued NLC. Accordingly, the security deposit furnished by the petitioner at the time of his appointment as cashier trainee was released.

2. Thereafter, Ext.P8 show cause notice was issued by the 4^th respondent proposing a punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed his objection. The 3^rd respondent revised the punishment as three increments without cumulative effect as per Ext.P9.

3. The petitioner was sanctioned a provisional pension of ₹8,500/- with effect from 01.06.2021 as per Ext.P8 order. In Ext.P8, even though ₹12,24,028/- was sanctioned as gratuity, Ext.P8 directed to recover ₹2,16,000/- as liability. It was fixed without issuing any notice or calling for explanation. Ext.P13 order, even though the gratuity amount was revised to ₹15,44,705/- but directed to recover the liability amount of ₹3,56,476/-. It was quantified against the petitioner without issuing any notice or furnishing details, as to how such liability is quantified. The liability amount arrived as per Ext.P10 or its enhancement in Ext.P13 were done against the principles of natural justice. That was not an issue in the disciplinary proceedings, contends the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

i) To issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate order or direction calling the records leading to Exts.P1, P4, P9, P10 and P13 and to quash the same.

ii) To declare that the fixation of liability as Ext.P13 is illegal and improper.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to refund Rs.3,56,476/- with interest to the petitioner.

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner less the amounts already paid within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

v) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P14 appeal and pass orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

6. After perusing the pleadings and hearing the parties, I find that the dispute is confined to the irregular payment allegedly made to the petitioner by way of Leave Without Allowance (LWA). It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was on LWA from 29.12.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.04.2018 to 16.09.2018. The respondents would submit that the petitioner has unauthorisedly drawn a salary amount of ₹3,49,152/- during this period. The said amount is liable to be recovered from the DCRG, according to the respondents.

7. The petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner was not paid salary and he has not drawn salary for the aforesaid period. The claim of the respondents for recovery of ₹3,49,152/- is belied from Ext.P17 memo dated 19.04.2018 of the Deputy Chief Engineer from which it can be seen that the respondents themselves have stated that the LWA liability is ₹1,20,291/- only. The petitioner has remitted that amount to the employer also. Therefore, no amount is liable to be deducted from the DCRG towards excess payment of LWA.

8. Standing Counsel, on the other han