Decided on June 28,2013

HANS KUMAR Appellant
Agriculture Production Commissioner/Chairman, U P Seeds Development Corporation, Lucknow Respondents


BARIN GHOSH,.J. - (1.) ORDER dated 23rd October, 1992 concluded a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by its employer, namely, U.P. Seeds Development Corporation Limited. By reason thereof, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Challenging the said order dated 23rd October, 1992, petitioner approached the Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow by filing a claim petition. That claim petition was transferred to the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand at Dehradun. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the State of Uttarakhand established Tarai Seeds and Development Corporation Limited. Tarai Seeds and Development Corporation Limited was impleaded as a party to the claim petition. Tarai Seeds and Development Corporation Limited contended that the claim petition filed against it may not be maintainable under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. The said contention was rejected. The Tribunal decided the claim petition on merits.
(2.) ON 12th June, 1992, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. In that, it was contended that, during the period 15thJanuary, 1987 to 16th April, 1992, while the petitioner was working as Seed Assistant at Hamirpur, he registered the names of Sri Pramod Kumar and Sri Rajiv Kumar Paliwal of Village Bharkhari and of Sri Brijesh Kumar of Village Swass and, thereupon, in terms of the Seed Production Programme of U.P. Seeds and Development Corporation Limited, allotted them seeds in order to grow seeds in 20 hectares of land allegedly belonging to each of the said registered persons and, later, it transpired that seeds, thus allotted, were not used for production of seeds and, accordingly, allotted seeds were wasted. It was contended that the said wastage occurred, inasmuch as, petitioner did not make any effort to ascertain the genuineness of those three persons and whether they had 20 hectares of land each before registering and allotting them seeds. Petitioner did not give any reply to the charge sheet. However, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the truth and substance of the charges as were levelled against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer held sittings. Petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings. Petitioner before the Inquiry officer did not hold out and, subsequent thereto, also did not hold out, neither is holding out in the present writ petition, that those three persons were not registered by him and that he did not allot seeds to those persons. The Presenting Officer presented some evidence before the Inquiry Officer for the purpose of demonstrating that neither those persons were found existing and, at the same time, their lands were also not found existing. Negative cannot be proved. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to establish that those persons do exist and their lands are also in existence. Petitioner made no effort to that effect despite participating in the inquiry proceedings. In such consequence, the Inquiry Officer reported in his report that the charge stands proved. A copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner seeking his response thereon. Petitioner wanted time to do so. That was granted. Petitioner again sought time. This time, no further time was given and, on the contrary, accepting the inquiry report, the order dated 23rd October, 1992, impugned in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, was passed. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the petitioner had no responsibility of verifying the genuineness of the claims as were put forward by those three persons. This contention has not been accepted by the Tribunal correctly, inasmuch as, the person, who registers persons for the purpose of obtaining free supply of seeds for the purpose of growing seeds, is required to ensure that the persons, who are being registered, are, in fact, genuine persons. Before the Tribunal, many other contentions were raised, including denial of natural justice. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal, according to us, rightly rejected those contentions.
(3.) IN the present writ petition, it is being contended that the Seeds Certifying Agency was obliged to verify the genuineness of those persons. The said contention has no legs to stand. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Seeds Act, 1966, it is open for the State Governments or the Central Government to establish Seeds Certifying Agencies for the purpose of carrying out the functions entrusted to the Certifying Agency by or under the Act. Such Agency, in terms of Section 9 of the Act, can certify any person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety. They have no obligation to certify a person, who will receive seeds for the purpose of sowing and producing seeds. We, accordingly, find no scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.