A fair price shop license cannot be cancelled without affording a reasonable opportunity to the licensee to defend against the allegations in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by respondent No. 3 by which the fair price shop of the petitioner had been cancelled.

3. Aggrieved with the said cancellation order, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal, which was also rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide an order dated 16.01.2013.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in Mohalla Gher Hasan Khan, Rampur since the date of his allotment and his work and conduct is satisfactory and no complaint has ever been made against the petitioner regarding irregularities in distribution of essential commodities by the valid ration card holders till date.

5. It has been averred in the writ petition that the respondent No. 2 suspended the fair price shop of the petitioner on the basis of mala - fide complaint as well as on report being submitted by the Supply Inspector and directed the petitioner to submit his reply. Thereafter, in pursuance to the suspension order, the petitioner submitted his explanation before the respondent No. 2 alongwith documents and affidavit of villagers denying the entire allegation levelled against him. It has also been averred that the respondent No. 2, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner and without perusing the evidence on record cancelled the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved with the cancellation order, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal No. 31 of 2012-13 (Kaleem Ullah Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others) alongwith stay application before the respondent No. 2 under S.28 (3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2008. Thereafter the respondent No. 2, without considering the facts of the case and without perusing the material on record, had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. , 2003 (21) LCD 610 held that after a charge - sheet is given to the employee an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. He further submits that no doubt, the aforesaid principles have been laid down by the Division Bench in the service matter but the same principle would also be applicable while making an inquiry in the present matter. Hence a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date so fixed the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence. Thereafter the employer must adduce his evidence first. The reason for this principle is that the charge - sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. The person who is required to answer the charge must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross - examination, as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him.

7. It is settled principle that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, the copies of material must be supplied to the party against whom such an enquiry is held. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did not consider this aspect of the matter and expressed their concurrence to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, without applying their independent and free mind. The Appellate Authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner failed to appreciate the fact that the Enquiry Officer at