The period of suspension of a fair price shop dealer pending enquiry cannot exceed 90 days. If the enquiry is not completed within 90 days, the suspension order must be revoked and the authorization of the dealer must be restored.

ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. G. Sindhu, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 1304034 of Kanakaveedu Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, by the 3rd respondent on 07.05.2015. She is discharging her duties as fair price shop dealer without any complaints and she is distributing essential commodities to the card holders attached to her shop.

3. Learned counsel further submits that basing on the report of the 4th respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Rc. M. 5980/2021, dated 30.12.2021, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry on certain allegations. Thereafter enquiry is not conducted and the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry for more than 90 days is illegal and against to the law declared by this Court and as such, the 3rd respondent has to revoke the suspension order and to restore the authorization of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual by allowing this writ petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submits that basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Nandavaram Mandal, to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued a show-cause notice dated 20.10.2021 to the petitioner calling her explanation to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The charges are that the petitioner got married with one Boya Somesh, who is working as Excise Constable and second charge is she is residing somewhere else with her husband and she is not residing in the village. Subsequently, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry on 30.12.2021. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, she is not entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of seven months, the alleged enquiry is not completed by the 3rd respondent, which is illegal and unjust.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record it is an admitted fact that basing on the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner levelling two charges. In the suspension order it is mentioned that the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 28.10.2021. After submission of the explanation, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2021 suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry.

7. In our considered opinion, the competent authority vested with power as disciplinary authority is bound to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner/fair-price shop dealer alleging certain allegations within reasonable time. There should be no unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Though, as contended by the respondents that no time limit is prescribed in relevant Control Order to complete disciplinary proceedings, in our view, the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 65 without deciding the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner/fair-price shop dealer and keeping them under suspension under the guise of pending enquiry, for an unreasonable period, would definitely violates the right to life of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the source of income for survival of him and hi