HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12612 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. V.K.Singh,learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed, assailing the recovery order dated 31-05-2025, passed by the respondent department. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been retired in the month of December,2024 and on 31-05-2025, all of sudden, the recovery order was passed while showing the recovery from the gratuity of the petitioner. He submitted that on the basis of an audit objection of the financial year 2013-2014, which was conducted in the year 2015, the recovery order has been passed, after retirement of the petitioner. He next submitted that there is no corroborative evidence in support of the audit objection and straightaway the recovery order for deducting the huge amount from the gratuity of the petitioner, has been passed. He submitted that there is no enquiry ever conducted prior the recovery order dated 31- 05-2025 is passed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment and Order dated 16-06-2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 414 of 2023, State Agricultural Produce Markets Board U.P. Lko and Others |Vs Meera Srivastava and Judgment and Order dated 28-02- 2025 passed in Writ A No. 10629 of 2024. He has referred paragraph nos. 11 to 13 of the Judgment and Order dated 16-06-2023 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.414 of 2023, which are reproduced Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Srivastava, Avadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Surendra Kumar Singh, Dr. V.K. Singh Umesh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) hereinafter:- "11. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and having perused the order dated 27.11.2021, this Court finds that there is no material which was brought on record to indicate as to how the aforesaid figure has been arrived at and how the liability has been apportioned amongst the husband of the respondent and the other employees found responsible for the alleged financial irregularities. All what appears from the record is that on the basis of some audit report, the aforesaid figure has been arrived and there has been no proper adjudication nor any exercise has been undertaken to actually determine the actual extent of the loss, who were found responsible and to what extent it could be attributed to any of the parties found responsible including the deceased husband of the respondent. In fact no enquiry was conducted prior to initiation of recovery. 12. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellant could not indicate or point out any statutory provision which confer powers on the appellants to have initiated the exercise of holding an inquiry after the retirement of the deceased husband of the respondent and its recovery. 13. In so far as the First Information Report is concerned, apparently, it was lodged on 24.03.2022 whereas admittedly the husband of the respondent had expired on 12.02.2021. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is evident that after the retirement and death of the husband of the respondent, there was practically no way, the alleged allegations could be contested or explained and even otherwise the appellants have miserably failed to show under what provision, they had the authority to initiate such exercise and how the inquiry was made and the amount sought to be recovered was determined and adjudicated." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgments abovesaid and therefore, submission is that the recovery order dated 31-05-2025, may be quashed. On the other hand, Dr. V.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there is a huge loss of Rs.11,40,000/- caused by the petitioner to the department, as is apparent from the audit objection report of the financial year 2013-2014 and therefore, there is evidence against the petitioner that he has put the respondent-Mandi Samiti in financial loss, thus, the recovery order has rightly been passed. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties WRIA No. 12612 of 2025 2 and after perusal of records, it transpires that the recovery order has been passed on 31-05-2025, whereby an amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- has been directed to be deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner. The moot question before this court is to decide that whether the recovery from the gratuity can be made after retirement of an employee and that too, on the basis of an audit objections. When this court examines the matter in the facts and law, it is apparent that the petitioner has been retired in the month of December, 2024 and bluntly, an order has been passed on 31-05- 2025, for recovery of the amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- from the gratuity of the petitioner, whereas admittedly, no enquiry has ever been contemplated or conducted against the petitioner. Further, the order dated 31-05-2025 reveals that the same has been passed on the basis of an audit objection of the financial year 2013- 2014 i.e. about 12 years ago and recovery order has been passed after retirement of the petitioner. It is trite law that no recovery can be made on the basis of the audit objection, unless there are corroborative evidences. This court finds from the order dated 31-05-2025 that the deduction from the gratuity of the petitioner has been made on the basis of the audit objection report only. Consequently, the order dated 31-05-2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. December 5, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 12612 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench