M A I N   N E W S

After Bihar, fodder scam in Punjab
Tribune News Service

Amritsar, April 2
After Bihar, now a fodder seed scam has come to light in Punjab.

The Department of Animal Husbandry, which is responsible for supplying of certified and quality fodder seed to the farmers, had allegedly purchased ‘unrecommended’ and ‘substandard’ fodder seed in bulk from an unrecognised Ludhiana-based firm.

The fodder seed, which was purchased by the head office at Chandigarh in 1998, was rejected by farmers.

In certain districts, the fodder seed of ‘chari’ (Shorgan — a fodder) is still lying unsold. The officers who have failed to clear the stock of ‘unrecommended’ fodder seed are being ‘pressurised’ by the head office staff to deposit money against the supply of fodder seed. Even the explanation of those officials was called who opposed the supply of the ‘unrecommended’ seed.

A circular, issued to district officers, has threatened to recover the money from the salaries of the officers who had ‘failed’ to clear the stock even after three years.

Interestingly, the seed which was purchased from the Ludhiana-based firm had only 50 per cent germination capacity when it was purchased by the department. The officials concerned had pointed out that the germination capacity had further decreased and farmers had refused to purchase the seed now. The firm had written that any litigation with the company would have to be pursued at Bangalore only.

Mr Jaswant Singh Ghai, feed and fodder development officer, has admitted that the fodder seed which was purchased three years ago was ‘unrecommended’ and hence most of the farmers refused to buy it. He, however, justified the circular issued by the head office regarding recovery of the amount from the officers who had failed to clear the stock. Mr Ghai also admitted that the dairy farmers had complained that the ‘chari’ grown from the seed was hard and animals did not eat it.

Sources alleged that though the fodder seed was not recommended by Punjab Agricultural University, officials of the department were forced to sell it at a higher rate as compared to the prevailing market rates. Officials of the department, who pleaded anonymity, alleged that the senior officers had threatened to make adverse entries in their annual confidential reports if they did not clear the remaining stock.