Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
K. Prabhavathi - Appellants
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
WP No. 1466 of 2020
Decided On : 24-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.V. Shivaji
For the Respondents: Government Pleader
Suspension of a dealer's authorization pending disciplinary enquiry under Rule 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 must be exercised with utmost care and circumspection, and the suspension order must provide cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension.
Headnote:
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - SUSPENSION OF AUTHORIZATION - ANDHRA PRADESH STATE TARGETED PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROL) ORDER, 2018 - RULE 8(4) - FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER - SUSPENSION OF AUTHORIZATION PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the suspension of authorization of her Fair Price Shop No. 1115132 by respondent No. 3, citing alleged contraventions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (Control Order, 2018). The suspension was based on a report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Proddatur, alleging that the petitioner failed to exhibit stock-cum-price notice, distributed essential commodities through manual weighing machines instead of electronic ones, abused cardholders, and failed to remit DDs within the scheduled time.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suspension order was not sustainable as the appointing authority did not apply its mind to the irregularities alleged against the petitioner and did not provide cogent reasons for the suspension. The court emphasized that suspension pending disciplinary enquiry should not be made as a matter of course and should only be exercised with utmost care and circumspection.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned suspension order was factually and legally sustainable? 2. Whether the appointing authority had the power to suspend the petitioner's authorization without issuing a prior show-cause notice? 3. Whether the suspension was necessary to ensure a fair disciplinary enquiry?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appointing authority has the power to suspend a dealer's authorization pending disciplinary enquiry under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, but such power must be exercised with utmost care and circumspection. 2. The court held that a prior show-cause notice is not mandatory before suspension, but the suspension order must provide cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. 3. The court held that suspension is not a panacea for ensuring a fair enquiry and should only be ordered when there is a compulsive need to prevent the dealer from meddling with the enquiry or tampering with evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the suspension order, and directed the respondent No. 3 to receive the petitioner's written explanation, conduct a due enquiry, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. The instant petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings in Ref. No. 1(4)/1477/2019 dated 25.12.2019 passed by respondent No. 3 suspending the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 1115132 of pending disciplinary proceedings.
2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
3. As can be seen from the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 in view of the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Proddatur dated 3.12.2019 the allegations that:
(1) The petitioner is not exhibited the stock-cum-price notice in the premises of the Fair Price Shop.
(2) Distributing Essential Commodities through manual weighing machines (Takkeda) instead of electronic weighing machines.
(3) Abusing the cardholders using unparliamentarily words.
(4) Not remitting the DDs within the scheduled time, has held that the petitioner prima facie committed contravention of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,.2018 (for short, "Control Order, 2018") and thus suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Learned Counsel would vehemently argue that the alleged contraventions are politically motivated and created to see that the petitioner's authorization is somehow cancelled and petitioner never committed any contraventions as alleged. It is further argue that no show-cause notice was issued calling for the explanation of the petitioner before suspending her authorization and hence the impugned order is devoid of principles of natural justice. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
5. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader contended that the villagers of Proddatur gave complaints against the petitioner alleging that she was not opening the shop regularly and she was delivering the commodities with less weight or using manual weighing machines instead of electronic weighing machines and when questioned, she was abusing the cardholders. He would argue that during the course of inspection also some of the cardholders gave statement. He produced the copy of the complaint dated 20.8.2019 said to be signed by the villagers and he also produced the statement of one of the cardholders. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is factually and legally sustainable?
7. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 reads thus:
"The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint; after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause."
Thus, it is clear that the appointing authority at any time in the public interest or suo-motu or on receipt of complaint can either suspend or cancel the authorization of a dealer after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary. Issuing show-cause notice prior to suspension is not mandatory. However after suspension, the authority shall issue show-cause notice call for explanation and then conduct a regular enquiry in order to establish guilt of the dealer. But prior show-cause notice for suspension is not essential. In G. Durga Srinivasa Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,: 2015 (6) ALD 359. This aspect has been discussed at length in the form of guidelines:
26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly Clauses 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn.
"(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind;
(ii) The power of suspension unde
