1. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in RC. No. 2547/2014C dated 28.10.2014 of respondent No. 2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner's fair price shop authorization, while issuing show-cause notice. The following are the charges on which respondent No. 2 has suspended the petitioner's authorization.

"Charge No. 1 : The F.P. Shop dealer is (has) received K. Oil on 17-9-2014 for the month of September 2014. But even after lapse of one month, he has not distributed K. Oil to the cardholders and caused much hindrance to the cardholders.

Charge No. 2 : The F.P. Shop dealer is (has) dumped the entire K. Oil in a community building in the village instead of his F.P. Shop premises with a mala fide intention to shift the K. Oil and ECS to the black market.

Charge No. 3 : The F.P Shop dealer is (has) failed to attend at the time of local enquiry by the CSDT to depose the enquiry statements.

Charge No. 4 : During enquiry, the cardholders have given statements that the F.P Shop dealer is issuing Ecs 3 or 4 days only in a month with less weighments.

Charge No. 5 : The F.P Shop dealer failed to produce all the F.P. shop accounts except the sales Register and Release order.

Charge No. 6 : During the physical verification of stocks with reference to sales, following variations are noticed, the excess stock of 2.28 Qts. of Rice and shortage of 0.21 Kgs. of Sugar.

2. The sum and substance of charge Nos. 1 and 2 is that though the petitioner has received kerosene oil on 17.09.2014 for the month of September 2014, he has not distributed the same and that he has dumped the kerosene oil in a community building in the village, with a mala fide intention to shift the same to black-market. In his explanation, the petitioner has categorically averred that since 17.09.2014, on which date the kerosene was supplied to him, he was awaiting release orders by the Revenue Inspector and that the latter deliberately did not issue the release order in order to put him in problems. For charge No. 2, the petitioner has clearly explained that he has been distributing the essential commodities from the community building in the village for a long time, to facilitate the cardholders and that, therefore, the question of storing the kerosene oil in the community building with a view to divert the same into black-market does not arise. The petitioner has also denied charge Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which are too trivial in nature to suspend his authorization. As regards the alleged variations mentioned in charge No. 6, the petitioner has stoutly denied any such variations and stated that the said allegation is entirely false. He has further stated that when the entries in the sales register are compared along with the ground stock, no variation could be found and that the Inspecting Officer has deliberately mentioned that variations exist, while, in fact, no such variations are found.

3. In K. Nirmala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, 2013 (1) ALT 339, this Court held as under:

"This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. It is regrettable that this principle is being ignored by the competent authorities in many a case. The case on hand is a perfect illustration of how respondent No. 2 has failed to make a rational approach by suspending the petitioner's authorization on the ground of small variations. Respondent No. 1 has also completely failed to consider this aspect and rejected the petitioner's application for stay without even assigning any reasons therefor."

4. In Thyrumala Setty Phanindr