HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13980 of 2010 DATED: 24.04.2014 Between:
G.A.Lakshmi Devi ... Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13980 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Veerapallipeta village, Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur district in the year 1994. While so, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 18.10.2008 to the 3rd respondent stating that several irregularities were committed by the petitioner in distributing the essential commodities to the card holders and requested for taking disciplinary action against the dealer. Basing on the report of the 4th respondent, six charges were framed against the petitioner and authorisation of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 06.11.2008. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 17.11.2008 in respect of all the charges. Respondents 1 to 3 considered the explanation in detail and after giving fair opportunity to the petitioner passed concurrent orders upholding the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging those orders.
3. The respondents filed counter stating that non distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders properly, selling of essential commodities at higher price than the rate fixed by the Government, non-exhibition of price lists, not informing to the public in advance regarding arrivals, delayed distribution and not weighing the commodities properly, are serious irregularities and the petitioner failed to produce any recorded evidence except denying the charges levelled against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner, though stated that no opportunity was given to the petitioner, a perusal of the record would reveal that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard by respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a reading of the entire explanation submitted by the petitioner makes it clear that the charges are baseless and no reasonable person would come to the conclusion arrived by respondents 1 to 3.
4. I have perused the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 and they have considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner in respect of each charge. This Court while reviewing the orders of the authorities under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, do not sit as a Court of appeal and out of the six charges, if single charge is proved, the action of the authorities has to be upheld. In the instant case, all the six charges were concurrently held proved by respondents 1 to 3.
5. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 24.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 1 WRIT PETITION No.13980 of 2010 Date: 24.04.2014 BSS