MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon a complaint being made by one Sunil Kumar Maurya on the telephone that the petitioner, who was a Fair Price Shop dealer, had in the month of May 2018 not distributed the essential commodities but had sold them out in the open market, an inspection was made by the Supply Inspector on 26.5.2018. Thereafter on 29.5.2018, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and a suspension order. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 11.6.2018. However, when the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansdeeh, District Ballia on 18.8.2018 cancelled the licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 12.12.2018, the instant writ petition was filed.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show-cause notice which was served on the petitioner along with the suspension order did not contain any specific charge. Even though the body of the order indicated that the stock of the petitioner which had to contain 127 bags of wheat and 87 bags of rice, had only 46 bags of wheat and 73 bags of rice but no definite charge was framed. Learned counsel submitted that after the narration of these facts an effort was there to formulate a charge which stated that in the stock of the petitioner 81 bags of wheat were found to be missing. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the charge appeared to be only with regard to the 81 missing bags of wheat. Learned counsel further submits that despite just one charge, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 11.6.2018 by which he had stated that in fact there was no bag which was missing from his shop and in fact when the stock of the petitioner's shop was handed over to the shop to which his shop was attached then there was not even a single bag of either wheat or rice which was found to be missing. However, when the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was passed on 18.8.2018, which ran into nine pages, strangely enough many other charges were looked into including the charge that the card-holders were aggrieved by the distribution which was being made by the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the inquiry itself was vitiated on account of the fact that the charges were vague. He, therefore, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors., 2013 6 SCC 515 and in Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2014 9 SCC 105 wherein it had been held that the charge sheet should be very clear with regard to the charges to which a delinquent was required to give a reply. Since learned counsel read-out a certain portion of paragraph 21 of Gorkha Security Services (supra), the same is being reproduced hereasunder:

(3.) The contention, therefore, of the petitioner was that when the charge was just with regard to the 81 missing bags of wheat then no further charge could have been dealt with while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the Appellate Authority did not address to the submissions made by the petitioner and, therefore, he prays that the orders impugned be set-aside.