The main legal point established is that administrative decisions, especially those leading to punitive actions, must be based on a full and proper enquiry, and charges not confronted with the accused cannot form the basis for cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Licensing Authority whereby the fair price shop agreement in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Further, challenge has been raised to the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Appeal Authority who has confirmed the order dated 16.03.2018.

3. Submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that cancellation order has been passed, amongst others on grounds that had not even been mentioned in the charge sheet. To that extent, the cancellation order is passed on extraneous consideration. Second, it has been submitted, the entire proceedings have arisen on unverified facts. The complaint was not supported by personal affidavit of any of the complainants. Amongst others, it included names of dead persons such as Salim S/o Sirajuddin, Jagat Pal S/o Lal Sahai, Vimla Devi W/o Mahipal, Champa Devi W/o Ram Lal and Prem Kali W/o Chandra Pal. The preliminary enquiry was conduced behind the back of the petitioner.

4. In any case, upon receipt of charge sheet, the petitioner rebutted the allegations, amongst others by filing personal affidavits of most of the complainants named in the charge sheet. Thus, the complaint allegation stood falsified. Third, it has been submitted, no full and proper enquiry as contemplated by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (3) ADJ 659 and as applied in Smt. Santara Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2016 (2) ADJ 70 was conducted. Solely on the basis of cursory observations made by the Licensing Authority, the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was cancelled.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit, widespread discrepancies were noted in the distribution of essential commodities and foodgrains by the petitioner. Many beneficiaries/card holders had been deprived of their fair right in the distribution of essential commodities and foodgrains. The specific allegation of short supply had not been squarely answered by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders were passed. They do not call for interference.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, there can be no doubt as to procedure to be adopted in these proceedings. Though in the conduct of the preliminary enquiry, certain material may come to the hands of the Licensing Authority, in an ex parte manner, at the same time, before the fair price shop agreement is cancelled, a full-fledged enquiry is to be conducted wherein the fair price shop agent may be furnished all adverse material and a fair opportunity is granted to him to rebut the charge. In that process, only such charges may be examined or tested as may have been framed against the fair price shop agent and with which he may have been confronted.

7. In the present case, besides the objection raised by the petitioner as to the incompetence of the complaint made, it does appear, numerous affidavits had been filed by the petitioner of persons who may have made an oral statement against the petitioner in the course of preliminary enquiry on 26.09.2017. Copies of such affidavits have also been annexed to the writ petition. Reference thereto has been made in the written reply submitted to the charge sheet dated 09.10.2017.

8. After the issuance of the charge sheet, the stage had reached to conduct a full-fledged enquiry, since the petitioner had effectively disputed the correctness of the ex parte oral statements claimed to have been recorded by certain complainants. That dispute had been raised by the petitioner on the strength of affidavits of the said complainants. In that fact, by way of a full-fledged enquiry, it was incumbent on the Licensing Authority to have summoned the complainants and examined them in the presence of the petitioner. At lea