Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boya Dasthagiramma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 July, 2022
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION No.21996 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Ms. G. Sindhu, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record.
2) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1304034 of Kanakaveedu Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, by the 3rd respondent on 07.05.2015. She is discharging her duties as fair price shop dealer without any complaints and she is distributing essential commodities to the card holders attached to her shop.
3) Learned counsel further submits that basing on the report of the 4th respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.M.5980/2021, dated 30.12.2021, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry on certain allegations. Thereafter enquiry is not conducted and the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry for more than 90 days is illegal and against to the law 2 declared by this Court and as such, the 3rd respondent has to revoke the suspension order and to restore the authorization of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer as usual by allowing this writ petition.
4) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submits that basing on the report of the Tahsildar, Nandavaram Mandal, to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued a show-cause notice dated 20.10.2021 to the petitioner calling her explanation to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The charges are that the petitioner got married with one Boya Somesh, who is working as Excise Constable and second charge is she is residing somewhere else with her husband and she is not residing in the village. Subsequently, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry on 30.12.2021. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, she is not entitled to continue as fair price shop dealer and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
5) The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of seven months, the alleged enquiry is not completed by the 3rd respondent, which is illegal and unjust. 3
6) Having heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record it is an admitted fact that basing on the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner levelling two charges. In the suspension order it is mentioned that the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 28.10.2021. After submission of the explanation, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2021 suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry.
7) In our considered opinion, the competent authority vested with power as disciplinary authority is bound to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner/fair-price shop dealer alleging certain allegations within reasonable time. There should be no unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Though, as contended by the respondents that no time limit is prescribed in relevant Control Order to complete disciplinary proceedings, in our view, the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar vs. State of Punjab1 without deciding the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner/fair-price shop 1 AIR 1982 SC 65 4 dealer and keeping them under suspension under the guise of pending enquiry, for an unreasonable period, would definitely violates the right to life of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the source of income for survival of him and his family is the commission, that he gets by running the fair-price shop. As such, the disciplinary authority is under legal obligation to complete the enquiry and appropriate decision has to take to cancel the authorization or otherwise of the petitioner within reasonable period.
8) The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool and others2. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No.13 as extracted hereinunder:
13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation of the authorisation, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or otherwise of the authorisation.
If for any reason the enquiry is not completed within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the appointing 2 1996 (1) APLJ 266 5 authority or the Appellate authority or the Revisionary authority.
9) Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents therein, and while disposing the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima3, a Division Bench of this High Court observed at para No.2 as extracted hereinunder:
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1982 (S.C.), 1965. In that case, the prescribed form of licence contained the clause for the period of suspension to be maximum for 90 days. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that in essence and substance what was meant by him is that the period of 90 days is a reasonable period to conclude the enquiry and the continuance of it beyond 90 days would be unreasonable and shall be, hence, taken as quashed. As we see it was in the nature of a direction to complete the enquiry within 90 days than laying down a general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension could be only for 90 days. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of suspension cannot be used as a pretext for indefinite postponement of the operation of the fair price shop dealership making it in effect cancellation of the dealership. An order of suspension, like every executive and administrative act, has to be founded upon fair play and lack of arbitrariness. The continuation of order of the suspension indefinitely is whole arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. But we must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.3
1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6
10) In the light of the observations of the Division Bench, as extracted supra, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the Respondents in the present case for more than 200 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the "reasonable period" and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within "reasonable period" and the suspension order passed against the order on 30.12.2021 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored.
11) For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 30.12.2021 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer.
12) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J 22.07.2022 Note: Issue CC tomorrow.
L.R. copy be marked.
B/o PGR 7 *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND + W.P.No.21996 of 2022 % 26.02.2021 # Boya Dasthagiramma, D/o Sivanna, Aged 45 years, Hindu, R/o Kanakaveedu Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Petitioner.
Vs. $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and others. .... Respondents.
! Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. G. Sindhu. ! Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:1
AIR 1982 SC 65 2 1996 (1) APLJ 266 3 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 8 DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 22.07.2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals.
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.NO.21996 of 2022 Dt.22.07.2022 PGR