THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.16652 of 2010 Between: Sri Thadaka Nagamallaiah PETITIONER And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rp. By the Collector (CS), Nalgonda District, and others. RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Collector, Nalgonda District in Case No.CS1/4573/2009, dated 1.05.2010 confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, the 2nd respondent herein, in proceedings No.G/985/09, dated 19.10.2009 whereunder the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization has been cancelled. The petitioner was granted authorization vide proceedings No.D/1616/2003, dated 26.10.2004 to run a fair price shop at Laxmapuram village o f Thungaturthi Mandal. The Tahsildar, Thungaturthy, the 3rd respondent herein, submitted a report to the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner participated in an election campaign for a political party during the general elections and delayed distribution of commodities in the month of April, 2009. Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent served a show cause notice dated 11.06.2009. In the show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation on the allegation that he participated in the election campaign on behalf of Congress (I) party candidate and that he failed to distribute the commodities in the month of April, 2009 within time. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.06.2009 stating that he placed indent by submitting Demand Draft on 25.03.2009 for allotment of quota for the month of April, 2009 but he received the quota on 18.04.2009. Thus there was no delay on his part in the distribution of commodities. In so far as participation in the election, the petitioner justified his action stating that he is a singer. The 2nd respondent was not convinced of the said explanation and accordingly cancelled the authorization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent caused an enquiry as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the delay in distribution of commodities by seeking remarks from the District Manager, A.P. Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalgonda. The said officer confirmed that rice was supplied to the dealer only on 18.04.2009. Thus the 1st respondent, on being convinced that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay, dropped the said charge. Since the disciplinary action was initiated only on the ground that the petitioner delayed distribution of commodities and the said allegation was found to be incorrect, the 1st respondent ought to have dropped the action against the petitioner by allowing the appeal. However, the 1st respondent proceeded on yet another ground. The petitioner was alleged to have received kerosene quota after his authorization was placed under suspension. The 1st respondent while dealing with the appeal called for a report in that regard through the Assistant Grain Purchase Officer, Kodad and held that the petitioner is guilty of receiving and distributing kerosene to the cardholders subsequent to the suspension of authorization. It may be noticed that this was not the charge against the petitioner either in the show cause notice or the same was the subject matter of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the said allegations could not have been the part of the appeal and could not have been taken into consideration against the petitioner. Indisputably, the petitioner was not even put to notice on the said allegation nor was any enquiry conducted after due notice to him. The 2nd respondent in his counter has admitted this fact but he seeks to justify on the ground that since it was a later event, the same was taken into consideration. The allegation being a later event is hardly enough to inflict a punishment on the petitioner without affording an opportunity to him. As noticed above the 1st respondent dropped the original charge on which the petitioner’s authorisation was cancelled. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the 1st respondent, which has resulted in confirmation of the orders of the 2nd respondent on a new ground being violative of the principles of natural justice, is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Case No.CS1/4573/2009, dated 1.05.2010 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 19.10.2009 is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th December, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in one week. Js.