The main legal point established is the requirement of a full-fledged inquiry, including the service of charge-sheet, inquiry report, and supporting materials, as interpreted in previous judgments.

Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Heard Sri P.R.Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) Varanasi Region Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent no. 2') in Appeal No. 53 of 2013 (Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Shahganj, District Jaunpur.

3. Vide order dated 31.12.2012, the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop has been cancelled. Whereas vide order dated 11.10.2013, appeal filed by the petitioner against the the order dated 31.12.2012 has been dismissed by the respondent no. 2.

4. While assailing the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before passing the impugned order of cancellation, neither the copy of the inquiry report (submitted by the Naib Tehsildar which has been made basis for cancelling the agreement) nor any charge-sheet, except suspension order, were served upon the petitioner, therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

5. The facts of this case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent of Village Darna, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. While working as such, spot inspection was made by the Naib Tehsildar of the petitioner's shop and there, he found shortages of 75 litre kerosene oil. He also found that on the distribution register, signatures of the cardholders have not been obtained. On that basis, the petitioner was required to file his reply. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed his reply. The Sub-Divisional Officer, considering the petitioner's reply, found that the petitioner has made interpolation in the register and breached the conditions of the agreement, hence he cancelled the agreement of the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved petitioner has filed appeal against the order of cancellation dated 31.12.2012. The respondent no. 2 too has affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

7. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner, herein, has filed present writ petition before this Court. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, following averments have been made : -

19. That respondent authorities blindly believe on report of Naib Tehsildar dated 14.12.2012 while it was not served to petitioner. Even respondent no. 3 did not serve any notice except suspension order dated 14.12.2012 seeking reply about stock of keorsene oil. Stock register was also verified by inspecting Officer (Naib Tehsildar) and his signature is mentioned there with remark "Seen" on 11.12.2013 in sale register of kerosene oil.

8. The reply of paragraph 19 of the writ petition has been given in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under : -

17. That the contents of paragraph no.19 of the writ petition need no reply.

9. From the perusal of paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, it transpires that the respondents have not disputed non-service of the inquiry report and charge-sheet upon the petitioner after the order of suspension and filing the petitioner's reply.

10. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 has held that in case, after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority decides to hold an inquiry for cancellation of the agreement then that requires full fledged inquiry, which, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013, decided on 28.11.2014) and Smt. Santara Devi vs. State of U.P. and others (2016(2) ADJ 70), means the service of the charge-sheet, inquiry report, statements of the cardholders/complainants, copy of the complaints and other supporting materials which are to be relied upon in support of the charges levelled against the fair price shop agent.

11. In view of t