IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 10210 & 10359 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 10210 of 2008 Between: Rayala Prabhakar Rao District Manager (Seeds) (Under Suspension) APSSDC Ltd. H.No.78-117, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool 518 002. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Seeds Dev. Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Vice Chairman & managing Director, 5-10-193, II Floor, HACA Bhavan, Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad. 2 Sri.M.Venkateswara Rao Enquiry Officer, A.P. State Seeds Dev. Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, II Floor, HACA Bhavan, Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari:- a) calling for the records pertaining to Charge Memo.No.SSDC/Admn/2007-08/5442, dated 3.12.2007 and Quash the same being violative of principles of natural justice, against to Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India., b) declare the action of the Respondent No.1/Corporation in not reviewing the Suspension Orders dated 12.3.2007 and not reinstating the petitioner into service as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of Natural Justice, and violation of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India., and c) consequently direct the Respondent No.1/Corporation to reinstate & continue the petitioner as District Manager (Seeds) with all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the post and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. d) pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:KOVVURIKRISHNA KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SHYAM SUNDER WRIT PETITION NO : 10359 of 2008 Between: G.Subbaiah Seed Officer (Under Suspension) APSSDC Ltd., Upstairs to DCCB , Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Seeds Dev. Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director 5-10-193, II Floor, HACA Bhawan, Opp. Public Gardens Hyderabad. 2 Sri M. Venkateswara Rao,. Deputy Collector (On Deputation to APSSDC Ltd) & 5-10-193, II Floor, HACA Bhawan, Opp. Public Gardens Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Charge Memo NO. SSDC/Admn/2007-08/5442 dt. 3-12- 2007 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural Justice and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.V.S.NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 10210 & 10359 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in these two writ petitions are employed as District Manager and Seed Officer, respectively, in the A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein. Both of them were issued charge memo, dated 3.12.2007, wehreunder it was alleged that on account of their acts and omissions, seed of a substandard quality was procured, and the farmers, who used the same, have sustained huge loses. It was alleged that the 1st respondent had to incur financial loss, in the form of compensation paid to the farmers. The petitioners were required to submit their explanation, as to why necessary action shall not be taken against them. Through the same proceedings, the petitioners were placed under suspension, pending enquiry. The petitioners challenge the said proceedings, on several grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the seeds procured from other agencies and approved by the petitioners, were found to be defective, and that even according to the scientific opinion, it was impossible for any expert, to predict the nature of yield, or output of a crop grown out of the seed. They contend that instead of proceeding against the suppliers of the seed, the 1st respondent had made the petitioners as the scapegoats. It was specifically mentioned in the impugned proceedings that the petitioners were deputed to the respective private firms, to examine the quality of seeds, before the same was produced, and it ultimately emerged that there was no yield at all, from the resultant crop. The 1st respondent had naturally to compensate the farmers, who sustained losses. The petitioners do not dispute that they were deputed to verify the processing of seeds. In case, it emerges that the failure of the crop cannot be attributed to any lapse, on the part of the petitioners, proceedings would be liable to be dropped. The petitioners can rely on such material, as they intend to, to prove their innocence, in the domestic enquiry. As of now, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. No serious legal infirmity is pointed out by the petitioners. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners, to urge all the grounds in the domestic enquiry. The 1st respondent shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 2nd May 2008 PAN