D VARALAKSHMI Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer of shop No. 9, Ratnapalli Village, H/o Veldurthy Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. On the ground that the Tahsildar, Veldurthy Mandal has filed an adverse report against her on 09.08.2011, complaining of certain irregularities in the matter of distribution of essential commodities, the authorization of the writ petitioner has been suspended by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.08.2011. Against the said order, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent Joint Collector along with a stay application. Since no orders are passed thereon, the writ petitioner has instituted Writ Petition No. 27752 of 2011 in this Court. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 11.10.2011 with a direction to the 1st respondent Joint Collector, the appellate authority, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner on 25.08.2011 as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. This Court has also suspended the operation of the orders passed on 16.08.2011 till appropriate final orders are passed by the appellate authority. The Joint Collector passed orders on 14.10.2011 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer has drawn a show cause notice on 11.11.2011 framing three charges and called for the explanation of the writ petitioner. The first charge sets out that the petitioner has failed to maintain registers and records prescribed by the government and thus, violated condition No. 4(i) of the authorization. The second charge is that the fair price shop was found to be run by a person other than the authorized dealer. The third charge is that the fair price shop dealer denied to supply scheduled commodities to the cardholders as per their entitlement. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 30.11.2011. Nearly 3 1/2 months later, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the final orders on 13.03.2012 cancelling the authorization of the writ petitioner. Against these orders of cancellation, in terms of Clause 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, an appeal has been preferred to the Joint Collector/District Collector (Civil Supplies), Kurnool, on 26.03.2012 together with a stay application. Complaining that no orders are passed thereon, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) On the last occasion, when this matter was heard on 04.04.2012, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has taken time to secure instructions in the matter. Today, he has produced a copy of the instructions faxed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. The Revenue Divisional Officer would set out that an enquiry was conducted into the allegations and thereafter, cancellation orders were passed.

(3.) Clause 5(5) of the 2008 Order requires the appointing authority/disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry before passing any orders of suspension/cancellation of the authorisation as a measure of punishment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, being the appointing authority, has drawn a charge sheet comprising of three charges. The first charge, to say the least, is as vague as vagueness could be. It should have been specifically averred and alleged against the writ petitioner as to which register or registers the petitioner has failed to maintain. When a vague allegation is thrown against the writ petitioner, she has also chosen to give an equally vague reply by simply denying the charge. The allegation should have been very specific as to which are those registers or records that the petitioner has failed to maintain properly or correctly, so that an appropriate explanation could have been offered by the writ petitioner. The second charge is that somebody else has been found distributing the essential commodities instead of the writ petitioner. In her explanation, the writ petitioner has given the reason why she was found absent from the village and that the person, who has been found distributing the essential commodities so as not to cause inconvenience to the ration cardholders, is an immediate family member. If a fair price shop dealer falls sick or does not maintain good health or if any other immediate family member of the dealer also does not maintain good health or falls sick, a fair price shop dealer can be away from the fair price shop-premises for taking treatment or for taking care of the sickly persons of the family. Such absence cannot be construed as a deliberate and wanton absence, warranting immediate adverse action against the dealer. In such circumstances, if an immediate family member is authorized to run and manage the fair price shop, such a conduct does not amount to either transferring the authorization or permitting an unauthorized person to run the fair price shop. To avoid any such misgivings, the dealer may be advised to intimate the Tahsildar indicating the likely period of absence and also the alternative arrangements made for distribution of essential commodities. The third charge is equally vague. It alleges that the writ petitioner has failed to distribute the essential commodities as per the entitlement to the cardholders. What is the commodity that has been refused or failed to be supplied by the writ petitioner to the cardholders is not mentioned. The essential commodities will be allocated to each fair price shop dealer by the Tahsildar concerned based upon the number and variety of ration cards attached to each fair price shop. Unless the Tahsildar makes an allocation of the essential commodities, the fair price shop dealer cannot lift the same from the Mandal Level Stockist Point. If no scheduled or essential commodities are allocated to a particular fair price shop by the Tahsildar, the blame cannot be fastened on to the fair price shop dealer for his/her failure to distribute them to the various ration cardholders. Therefore, the charge should have been specific, as to which essential commodity has been lifted by the petitioner and how he failed to distribute the same.