The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.35009 of 2014
Dated 19.11.2014
Between: M.Ramachandra Reddy …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.S.D.Gowd Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the suspension-cum-show cause notice, dated 24-09-2014, issued by respondent No.3.
A perusal of the impugned suspension order shows that the petitioner’s authorization, in respect of fair price shop No.6 of Vannampalli Village, was kept under suspension on the following charges:
Charge No.1: The F.P.Shop dealer is selling the essential commodities at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government.
Charge No.2: He is distributing the Rice with 2 kgs less weighments; that the card holders receiving 18 kgs instead of 20 kgs and questioning the same starting arguments with the cardholders and causing much inconvenience and hindrance to the Public Distribution System. Thus, he violated the duties of the Fair price dealers under Clause 22 (iv) of the A.P.S.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2008. Charge No.3: He is distributing Rice and Sugar and not distributing the other commodities.
Charge No.4: He is distributing the K.Oil only 1 liter to the cardholders.
From the very nature of the charges reproduced above, I am of the opinion that suspension of the petitioner’s authorization even before holding an enquiry is wholly unwarranted, for each one of those charges requires substantiation and proof. Unless a detailed enquiry is held, none of those charges can be said to have been prima facie established. In the above view of the matter, the impugned proceeding, dated 24-09- 2014, of respondent No.3, to the extent of suspending the petitioner’s authorization is set aside. Respondent No.3 is left free to hold a detailed enquiry, in which he shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner with reference to the relevant registers and records.
Respondent No.3 shall hold personal enquiry and make an objective approach, without being guided either by the reports of the subordinates or by extraneous considerations and pass a detailed order, if he chooses to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.43799 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 19th November, 2014
LUR