The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a judicial approach, fair inquiry, and the need for charges to be proved with accompanying evidence and material before reaching a decision.

Siddhartha Varma, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri O.P. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shams-uz-zaman for the respondent no. 6.

2. Two pure questions of law have been raised by the petitioner's counsel:-

I. As to whether the Authority concerned could have cancelled the agreement of the fair price shop only on the basis of the fact that no reply was given by him and;

II. Whether the cancelling Authority could consider the past record of the petitioner for cancelling the Fair Price Shop.

3. The learned Standing Counsel has chosen not to file any counter affidavit and has made his submissions.

4. On 15.11.2016, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet which had, in effect, five charges:-

I. The petitioner did not open his Fair Price Shop on time and also did not distribute the essential commodities.

II. The petitioner did not give the stipulated quantity of food grain and also misbehaved with the customers.

III. On the pretext of supplying of gas cylinders and preparing ration cards, the petitioner made illegal demands from various card holders.

IV. The petitioner never displayed the information chart giving the prices etc. of the food grains.

V. After the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner was suspended on 17.10.2016, the petitioner had on 2.11.2016 with the help of an E-riksha taken out around 3.5 quintals of rice and had sold it in the open market and for that a first information report was also lodged.

5. The petitioner had replied to the charge sheet on 30.11.2016. The agreement to run the fair price shop was cancelled on 20.12.2016 and the appeal as was filed was dismissed on 16.5.2017. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

6. The petitioner's counsel submitted that if the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Badhaot District Bagpat is seen then it becomes evident that none of the charges as were framed against the petitioner were either dealt with or were proved and findings have been arrived at as if the petitioner had not filed any reply.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the authorities were not taking his reply into account they ought to have allowed him at least to lead his evidence and cross examine the witnesses of the complainant.

8. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1989 SC 162 : (Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo) wherein it has been held that the defendant had all the right to cross examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses and only after the Court looked into the evidence of the plaintiffs and the cross examination done by the defendants of the witnesses could it come to a definite conclusion after framing of issues as to what fate of the case would meet. He further cited a Full Bench decision in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (3) ADJ 659 and submitted that as per the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 enquiry had to be conducted in the manner it was envisaged by the Government Order and it could not have been put to rest simply because the petitioner had not submitted his reply.

9. This according to the petitioner could not have been done and he relied on 2010 (7) ADJ 529 (DB) : (Kishore Singh v. State of U.P.), wherein this Court has held specifically in paragraph 15:-

"The mere expression of the delinquent that he does not want to say anything beyond the reply he had submitted would not mean that the charges stand proved. Even in a case where after service of charge sheet, no reply is submitted by the delinquent and/or the delinquent does not participate in the inquiry even then the department has to prove the charges on the basis of documentary evidence, material on record and by adducing oral evidence, if required. Simply because the delinquent has not participated in the inquiry, it would not be presumed that the charges stand proved. To prove the guilt or the charg