POLU SRINU Vs. STATE OF A.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dtd. 9/5/2023 framing seven charges against the petitioner with false allegations in respect of the stock at mobile unit of the petitioner and sought for a detailed explanation. For which, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 5/6/2023. He further submits that without conducting any enquiry and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the respondents issued impugned proceedings dtd. 10/6/2023 suspending the petitioner as MDU operator by seizing the stock and vehicle of the petitioner. He further submits that as per Clause 8(4) of Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, after issuing show cause notice the respondents shall conduct proper enquiry and dispose of the proceedings against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of initiation of proceedings. But for the reasons best known to the respondents, even after lapse of five months, the respondents neither conducted any enquiry nor disposed of disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018.