Disciplinary proceedings against a Fair Price Shop dealer require an independent report pursuant to Clause 20(i) of the Control Order, 2018, and must adhere to principles of natural justice, including fair opportunity for cross-examination and disclosure of reliance material.

ORDER:

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

Assailing the orders of the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.SR.No.13/2020 S5 dated 15.03.2021 confirming the orders of the 3^rd respondent in SR.No.104/2019 S5 dated 28.12.2019 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has been appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for fair price shop No.0126001, Karajada Village, in the year 2003 and ever since, he was distributing essential commodities to the utmost satisfaction of the cardholders and the officials. While so, on 11.09.2019, Additional Civil Supply Officer, Deputy Tahsildar, Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Assistant inspected the said shop in the presence of mediators and found variations, accordingly, basing on the report of the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar, the 3^rd respondent initiated disciplinary enquiry for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization and issued show cause notice dated 21.09.2019 framing charges. On 21.09.2019, petitioner’s authorization was suspended, pending enquiry. Assailing the same, writ petition vide W.P.No.14870 of 2019 has been filed and this Court granted interim suspension of the said proceedings dated 21.09.2019.

It is his further case that the 3^rd respondent surprisingly passed the cancellation orders vide SR.No.104/2019 S5 dated 28.12.2019. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.2112 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 31.01.2020 without going into the merits of the case giving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2^nd respondent-District Collector which was dismissed under proceedings dated 15.03.2021. Assailing the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The 2^nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that there is no procedural irregularity and the authorities have conducted detailed enquiry and having satisfied with the material available on record that there are variations, cancellation orders have been passed by the primary authority and as there are no valid grounds made out warranting interference in the appeal, the appeal got dismissed thereby confirming the orders of the primary authority.

4. Heard Sri Saptagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that the Primary Authority initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner by duly taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar issued under 6A proceedings of Essential Commodities Act, 1956. He further submitted that to initiate disciplinary enquiry, the authority has to invite separate report from the Tahsildar. Without proceeding in that manner, basing on 6A report of the Tahsildar, the enquiry has been conducted and thereby the petitioner’s authorization has been cancelled. The Appellate Authority-District Collector/2^nd respondent herein, in a mechanical manner confirmed the said orders without proper application of mind and without adjudicating on the grounds raised by the petitioner. Even otherwise, when the petitioner has denied the charges framed against him, it is a bounden duty cast upon the Primary Authority to conduct a detailed enquiry by examining inspecting authorities and panchayatdars/mediators in his presence and thereby providing an opportunity of cross examining them. He further submitted that the burden lies on the authorities to prove that the petitioner has committed irregularities contravened to the Control Order 2018.

He further submitted that a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 held that for initiating disciplinary action, an independent report has to be invited by virtue Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 2018. In the said case, as the authorities have cance