SURAJ PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. UP-SAMBHAGIYA KRISHI PRASAR ADHIKARI SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICER VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the relevant time (1999-2000), petitioner was working as Go-down In-charge at Government Agriculture Seeds Centre, Danganj at Varanasi. It was alleged that petitioner did not sell the whole quantity of a particular type of seed supplied to him in time and did not inform about the quantity of unsold seeds in time, hence State suffered a loss of about Rs.49,000/- as the seeds became defective due to passage of time and had to be sold on lesser price. Earlier also petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.54514 of 2003 against the recovery of the aforesaid amount from his gratuity. Writ petition was disposed of on 09.08.2005 with the direction that matter must be decided by District Agricultural Officer (D.A.O.), Varanasi. Thereafter, D.A.O. sought opinion of the District Government Council, who opined that in view of the High Court order dated 09.08.2005, gratuity should not be withheld and be paid to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition was that Deputy Director of Agriculture, Varanasi, on the recommendation of District Agricultural Officer, which in turn was based upon the opinion of District Government Council, passed an order on 28.11.2005 for release of the withheld gratuity. However in spite of the said order, gratuity was not paid to the petitioner. In the instant writ petition, an interim order was passed on 24.03.2006. It was observed therein that the opinion of District Government Council was not correct and D.A.O. and Deputy Director of Agriculture, Varanasi had wrongly acted blindly upon the said opinion. Deputy Director and D.A.O. were directed to file their affidavits. Thereafter, matter was again examined by them and on 31.03.2006, Deputy Director Agriculture, Varanasi passed an order that earlier order dated 09.08.2005 had wrongly been passed and loss was caused to the State due to negligence of the petitioner, hence the amount of Rs.49022/- shall be recovered from the petitioner's gratuity. Said order has also been challenged through amendment in this writ petition. Unfortunately, in the order dated 31.03.2006 also no reason has been given. A commodity can be sold only if someone is ready to purchase the same. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner that in what manner he was negligent due to which total seeds could not be sold to the farmers at the relevant time. Promotion of sale is distinct from maintaining depot where goods are stored/ kept for selling. Even in small units departments of production and sale are different. There is no precise allegation that what specific steps were required to be taken by the petitioner for promoting the sale, in which he failed and due to that total seeds could not be sold. Without recording such a finding, it was not possible to direct the loss to be recovered from the petitioner (either from his gratuity or in any other manner). Petitioner has stated that he had not made any demand for the particular seeds, the whole which could not be sold to the farmers. In the counter affidavit also no specific negligence of the petitioner has been pointed out. The only allegation in Para-4 of the counter affidavit is that petitioner could not sell the entire supplied seeds timely to the farmers. Often the Research Department of the Government comes out with new types of seeds or plants. It is for the field workers to persuade the farmers to purchase newly developed seeds or plants. Proper advertisement through media and other means is also essential for persuading the customers/ farmers to use the newly developed seeds and plants. If due to any reason, sufficient number of farmers are not persuaded to purchase and plant newly developed seeds and plants, a store-keeper cannot be held liable for the same. May be due to previous experience, the farmers might have found that the seed in question was not as good as claimed and advertised to be. Accordingly, in my opinion, in the absence of any finding regarding specific negligence of the petitioner, the amount of Rs.49,000/- and odd cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 31.03.2006 is set aside. Respondents are directed to release the entire amount of gratuity of the petitioner within three months from the date of service of a copy of this order failing which 1.5% per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after three months till actual payment.