THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40705 of 2014 Between:
Shaik Rahim and
DATE: 30.12.2014
…Petitioner State of Andhra Pradesh and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI I.KOTI REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40705 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed against proceedings vide Rc.J/2344/2013, dated 31.01.2014 passed by respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization is not being disposed of by respondent No.2.
Though the grievance of the petitioner is confined to non-disposal of the stay application, a perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3 would show that the charges, on which he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization, ex facie appear to be frivolous and fictitious. The principal charge pertains to the alleged variations in respect of different commodities. These variations are shown to be 13 kgs of rice, 7 packets of sugar, 3 packets of redgram dal, 4 packets of wheat atta, 5 packets of turmeric powder, 5 packets of chilli powder, 3 packets of tamarind and 6 packets of salt.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) fairly conceded that the alleged variations in respect of all the commodities are well within the permissible limits under Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). Therefore, such a charge should not have been framed at all. Charge Nos.2 and 4 that the petitioner has not maintained the Price Cum Stock board properly and that he was distributing essential commodities to the cardholders for 3 or 4 days, are not serious enough warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, as being the appointing authority, respondent No.2 would have been free to summon the petitioner and ask him to follow the prescribed procedure in that regard. He ought to have followed similar procedure with regard to charge Nos.3, 5 and 6 also.
On a careful consideration of the nature of the charges framed against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that as the imputations against the petitioner do not pertain to the serious acts of diversion of essential commodities into black market with a view to get pecuniary advantage, detrimental to the interest of the cardholders, or any other commissions and omissions, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, dated 31.01.2014 are quashed. The petitioner is permitted to appear before respondent No.3 within ten days from the date of receipt of this order with an undertaking that he will rectify all the defects pointed out in the suspension order passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner is also cautioned to be careful in future by scrupulously following the provisions of the Control Order.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.51006 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni