B.SAROJAMMA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 3rd respondent was appointed as a dealer for a fair price shop at Bommireddipally Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District on 08.01.2003. A news item was published alleging that the 3rd respondent has indulged in diversion of rice meant for public distribution. The Tahsildar of the Mandal, the 2nd respondent herein, submitted a complaint and the Station House Officer, Nallacheruvu Police Station registered Crime No.32 of 2004. The appointing authority, the 1st respondent herein, issued a show cause notice, dated 03.02.2004, and has placed the 3rd respondent under suspension pending enquiry. In the place of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner herein was appointed as in- charge dealer.

(2.) THE criminal Court, which tried the 3rd respondent on the basis of a complaint has acquitted him. The 3rd respondent has submitted explanation on number of occasions and ultimately, prayed for reinstatement. Through order, dated 22.01.2013, the 1st respondent directed reinstatement of the 3rd respondent as dealer. The petitioner challenges the same. She contends that mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be treated as a justification for reinstatement of the 3rd respondent.

(3.) THE authorisation of the 3rd respondent as a fair price shop dealer was suspended on 03.02.2004. That was preceded by a show cause notice, dated 18.10.2003. Though explanation was submitted on 12.03.2004 itself, the matter was not taken up on account of the fact that the criminal case was pending. The 3rd respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him by the Criminal Court on 07.05.2011. Apart from that, the 1st respondent took into account, the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent and recorded a finding to the effect that there is no diversion or misappropriation of the essential commodities.