WP/41172/2014 of L.C.Malakonda Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed with the grievance that though nearly 2 ½years had elapsed from the date of passing of the order of suspension,the enquiry is not finalised.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P).

By order, dated 10.09.2012, the petitioner’s authorisation wassuspended by respondent No.4 on the following allegations:

(1) there was shortage of 0.015 kgs of MDM rice, anexcess of 0.002 kgs of sugar and shortage of 0.001 kgof palmolein oil,

(2) dealer was not possessing valid authorization andwhen asked, he said that he has sent the same forrenewal,

(3) when verified the sales register, instances havebeen noticed that the essential commodities of threecardholders were given to one person by nameD.Suguna,

(4) the stock-cum-price board was not properlymaintained,

(5) the petitioner has not maintained flexi boarddepicting the particulars of shop, dealer, timings andprices,

(6) the petitioner has not maintained flexi boarddepicting “one rupee kilo rice”,

(7) the petitioner has not maintained flexi boarddepicting the particulars of cardholders and

(8) though there were entries in the sales register fordistribution of 24 litres of kerosene oil, the dealer hasshown 30 litres as openining balance from 01.09.2012in the stock register without effecting the entries duringthe current month.

Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.32568 of2012 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 16.10.2012, declinedto interfere with the said order in view of availability of remedy of appeal,to the petitioner. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed an appeal beforerespondent No.3. By his order dated 05.03.2013, respondent No.3,without interfering with the order of respondent No.4, directed the latter tocomplete the disciplinary proceedings within two weeks. The grievanceof the petitioner is that though more than 1 ½ years had expired from thedate of disposal of the appeal, respondent No.4 has not finalised theenquiry and passed a final order.

A perusal of the charges, on which the petitioner’s authorisationhas been suspended, shows that none of them are serious enoughwarranting suspension. Even assuming that such suspension iswarranted, there is no justification for keeping the enquiry pending formore than 2 ½ years, while keeping the petitioner’s authorisation undersuspension.

Indeed, this Court has held that the action of suspension beingextreme in nature, the appointing authority shall not resort to such action,unless the nature of the allegations is so serious that it is not desirable tocontinue the fair price shop dealer till completion of enquiry and passingof a final order. (See K.Nirmala V. Revenue Divisional Officer,Anatapur[[1]],Thyrumala Setty Phanindra V. District Collector (CS), Guntur District and others[[2]]and in Writ Petition No.25823 of 2014 andbatch, dated 07.10.2014). Unless the appointing authority refers to thenature of the allegations and records his satisfaction that the continuance of dealer is not in public interest, the action of suspension cannot beresorted to.

In the above circumstances, if enquiry has not been completedand final order has not already been passed and served on the petitionerso far, he shall be permitted to resume as the dealer of fair price shopNo.20 of Bhyravaram village, Duttaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Conclusion

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel todisposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.51551 of 2014, filed by thepetitioner for interim relief, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

31.12.2014v v

_____________________

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

[1]2013 (1) ALT 3392013 (1) ALT 339

[2]2013 (5) ALT 2372013 (5) ALT 237