A RENGANATHAN Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 25. 08. 2006 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 23,117/- for the unsold stocks of paddy seeds to be sold in the regulated market and to forbear the respondents from making recovery from the petitioner's salary.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is working as Assistant Agricultural Officer, in the Agricultural Department, having been initially appointed as a Field Demonstration Officer in the Office of the Small Development Project Office, Mamallan Nagar, Kancheepuram, on 01. 07. 1981 and he was subsequently upgraded as Assistant Agricultural Officer on 19. 07. 1995 and was awarded as Selection Grade on 01. 07. 2006 and serving with unblemished record of service. The second respondent has issued a memo on 03. 03. 2006 calling for explanation with regard to audit objection in respect of the unsold stocks of paddy seeds sold in the regulated market in subsidized prices and stating that consequently, there was a loss to the Government. The petitioner also submitted his explanation on 05. 05. 2006 denying the responsibility fixed on the petitioner in respect of the unsold stocks as it is the duty of the Agricultural Development Officer who would be actually entrusted with the responsibility of the unsold stocks as per the Government order. Since in the mean time, the petitioner has completed 25 years of service, he has applied for voluntary retirement on 20. 05. 2005 to be retired from 31. 08. 2006. While so, on 25. 08. 2006 the petitioner was served with the impugned order stating as if by the conduct of the petitioner a loss has been caused to the Government and that an amount of Rs. 23,117/- should be paid before 31. 08. 2006. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner would rely upon an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal wherein, the Tribunal has quashed the recovery proceedings in respect of Assistant Administrative Officer directing to refund of the amount, since the reasons attributed for unsold stocks on the Assistant Agricultural Officer is arbitrary. The petitioner also would rely upon the subsequent judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 19207 of 2006 dated 11. 07. 2006, holding that the Assistant Agricultural Officer cannot be held responsible for the unsold stocks in respect of seeds and fertilizers to be sold in the subsidized price.