Telangana High Court
WP/40705/2014 of Shaik Rahim, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40705 of 2014 DATE: 30.12.2014 Between: Shaik Rahim …Petitioner and 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
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.40705of2014DATE: 30.12.2014Between:Shaik Rahim…Petitioner andState of Andhra Pradesh and others…RespondentsCOUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI I.KOTI REDDYCOUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40705of2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the stayapplication filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed againstproceedings vide Rc.J/2344/2013, dated 31.01.2014 passed byrespondent No.3 suspending the petitioner’s fair price shopauthorization 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 byrespondent No.3 would show that the charges, on which he hassuspended the petitioner’s authorization, ex facie appear to befrivolous and fictitious. The principal charge pertains to the allegedvariations in respect of different commodities. These variations areshown to be 13 kgs of rice, 7 packets of sugar, 3 packets of redgramdal, 4 packets of wheat atta, 5 packets of turmeric powder, 5 packets ofchilli 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 respectof all the commodities are well within the permissible limits underClause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System(Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). Therefore, such acharge should not have been framed at all. Charge Nos.2 and 4 thatthe petitioner has not maintained the Price Cum Stock board properlyand that he was distributing essential commodities to the cardholdersfor 3 or 4 days, are not serious enough warranting initiation ofdisciplinary proceedings against him, as being the appointingauthority, respondent No.2 would have been free to summon thepetitioner and ask him to follow the prescribed procedure in thatregard. He ought to have followed similar procedure with regard tocharge 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 imputationsagainst the petitioner do not pertain to the serious acts of diversion ofessential commodities into black market with a view to get pecuniaryadvantage, detrimental to the interest of the cardholders, or any othercommissions and omissions, initiation of disciplinary proceedingsagainst the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. Therefore, the impugnedproceedings, dated 31.01.2014 are quashed. The petitioner ispermitted to appear before respondent No.3 within ten days from thedate of receipt of this order with an undertaking that he will rectify allthe defects pointed out in the suspension order passed by respondentNo.3. The petitioner is also cautioned to be careful in future byscrupulously following the provisions of the Control Order.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the WritPetition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.51006 of2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of.
30[th] DECEMBER, 2014.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
kvni