Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80725 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38328 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shiksha Rani Agarwal Head Mistress Since Retd. Respondent :- U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.B.Paul,Rajesh Kr. Srivastava,Rohan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Pranay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Devesh Mishra, Advocate for Respondent-2. 2. There may be many defects and shortcomings in the pleadings, however, a forceful argument of a young Lawyer, Sri Prayay Kumar, goes to the root of case is, that most adverse documents, i.e., the two reports of inspection of construction of building in School concerned were never confronted to the petitioner, a lady, who was holding the post of Incharge Principal at the relevant time. 3. Another submission is that there is no basis of determination of quantum of recovery which is 50% of amount deposited in the account of Committee of Management of concerned School for construction, especially when it was not a case that no construction took place. The case of respondents was that the construction was not upto the mark, therefore, a case of interference is made out. 4. In this regard Court also takes note of photographs which atleast show that construction was not in a dilapidated condition though it may be a case that it was not upto the mark as well as that without any specific inquiry on the issue and without any basis of determination of quantum, deduction from pension is impermissible. 5. Petitioner was retired on 30.06.2008 and though an inquiry was already initiated but it was not concluded before her retirement. Law in this regard is that inquiry can be continued even after retirement but on the facts of present case Court finds that principal of natural justice were not substantially followed. Half of the amount was directed to be recovered from Pradhan of concerned Village, however, he is not before this Court as well as there is no instruction to counsel for respondents that recovery has already been made from Pradhan concerned. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that procedure adopted to pass an order for recovery as well as procedure for determination of quantum was not as per law, therefore, order impugned in this writ petition is suffered with illegality. 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.06.2014 is hereby set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. Since the amount has already been recovered from petitioner, therefore, it is directed that said amount be released in favour of petitioner by adding 1/10 of said amount in pension for ten months commencing from July, 2025 to April, 2026. Request on behalf of petitioner for interest on repayment is rejected. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad