Judgment :- The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer in Azhangankulam Group, Ramanathapuram Taluk. He filed O.A.No.2948 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order dated 26.04.2002. 2. By the impugned order, a sum of Rs.11,924/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner in 19 instalments. Aggrieved by the said recovery, the petitioner moved the Tribunal with the Original Application. Pending notice of motion, an order of interim stay was granted on 29.05.2002. Subsequently, the interim stay was extended. Despite notice from the Tribunal, the respondent had not filed any counter affidavit till date. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.5880 of 2007. 4. The recovery was made against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had recommended a case of one Mrs.Karupayee for the grant of old age pension. While recommending her case, he did not disclose that she had three daughters. When this matter was found out, the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram directed recovery of the amount paid for the period from 01.08.1992 to 30.09.1999 and the said amount which was a loss caused to the State was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner as against the order passed by the Tahsildar had complained that he was not furnished with the file relating to payment of assistance to said Karupayee and he pleaded stay of the said order. 5. The petitioner was given 15 days time to peruse the file before the recovery was made. Subsequently, it was informed that the order granting old age pension to the said Karupayee was not found as informed by the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and he was given time for giving his explanation. In the absence of the said explanation, the impugned order came to be passed. The District Collector, who passed the impugned order had stated that without the necessary recommendation from the Village Administrative Officer, there was no scope for granting old age pension to that beneficiary. In that view of the matter, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. However the petitioners request to peruse the file was not conceded on the ground that the file was not available. It must be noted that such a penalty cannot inflicted on the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. However the petitioners request to peruse the file was not conceded on the ground that the file was not available. It must be noted that such a penalty cannot inflicted on the petitioner. Without substantive evidence, no allegation can be proved on the basis of surmises and conjectures. When the respondent wanted to recover the loss caused to the State, the penalty order must be supported by materials and should not based upon presumptions and without legal evidence. 7. In the present case, it is the admission of the Tahsildar that the original file was missing. Therefore, the District Collector was constrained to pass the recovery order only on that basis. Though in the normal circumstances, without Village Administrative Officers recommendation, grant of old age pension will not be given by the Collector, in the present case, it is the stand of the petitioner that he could not recall any recommendation given by him in favour of the said Karupayee. If that was the stand of the petitioner, the respondent should produce some material to hold the petitioner guilty. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioners allegation that no principles of natural justice was followed in his case merits acceptance. 8. In the absence of any credible materials produced on the part of the respondents and also the fact that no counter affidavit was filed till date, this Court has no other option except to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of recovery stands set aside. No costs.