IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14598 of 2009 Between: B.Padmavathi D/o.Ramavathi Vallapuram(V) Wyra (M) Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P Khammam,Khammam District 2 The Joint Collector& Additional District Magistrate Khammam,Khammam District 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Khammam,Khammam District 4 The Tahsildar Wyra (M) Khammam District ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOVVURI KRISHNA KISHORE Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the orders of respondent No.3 as confirmed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively are under challenge. The petitioner was fair price shop dealer of Vallapuram Village of Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. The shop was inspected, based on which a show cause notice was served on the petitioner, with the following two charges: “1. When the UDRI/CS Wyra inspected the shop on 10.01.2005, he found that the F.P.shop dealer was selling K.Oil at higher rate @ Rs.10/- per liter instead of Rs.9.50. 2. The F.P shop dealer has not lifted and distributed entire allotted E.Cs in the month of December, 2004 due to which some of the cardholders were deprived of their benefits of PDS rice and K.Oil. Due to non-lifting of full quota allotted to the F.P shop, the higher officials are allotting the E.Cs duly reducing the quantity of K.Oil not lifted by the dealier.” On the ground that the petitioner has not given her explanation to the show cause notice, and the enquiry conducted by UDRI/CS revealed that the petitioner sold kerosene at Rs.10/- instead of at Rs.9.50 ps and that all the cardholders have not lifted their essential commodities during November and December, 2004, her authorization was cancelled by respondent No.3, by his order dated 23.04.2005. This order was questioned in appeal before respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2, by his order dated 27.11.2006. Respondent No.2 has observed in his order that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam is silent on the point of closing balance of essential commodities, which was stated to be available with the petitioner at the end of December, 2004 and presumed that the petitioner would have distributed the entire quantity to the needy cardholders without showing 2.84 quintals of rice and 13 liters of kerosene oil as closing balance. Respondent No.2 also took note of the plea of the petitioner that as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam was not available, she submitted her explanation to the DAO of Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam and that the same was not taken into consideration by respondent No.3. However, respondent No.2 upheld the order of respondent No.3. The revision petition filed by the petitioner ended in its dismissal by order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the District Collector. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3 shows that the statements of Chittineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Koyini Lalamma, Mannem Rangaiah residents of Vallapuram, recorded by UDRI/CS, revealed that the petitioner was selling kerosene oil at Rs.10/- in stead of at Rs.9.50 ps and that all the cardholders have not lifted their essential commodities during November and December, 2004. Though the fair shop dealers are bound to scrupulously follow the instructions issued regarding the distribution and the price at which the essential commodities shall be distributed, the nature of the irregularities alleged against the petitioner is not so serious as to warrant cancellation of authorization. The petitioner is not accused of misfeasance and malfeasance in a habitual manner. While it is the case of the petitioner that in some cases, she would not have returned 0.50 ps, due to non-availability of change, even if Charge No.1 is taken as having been proved, the charge is not so serious as to cancel the authorization at the first instance. If the petitioner is found to have repeated such habit in future, then such a conduct would have deserved cancellation of the authorization. Similarly, even Charge No.2, if proved, only reveals that in the month of December, 2004, the petitioner failed to lift all the commodities which denied supply of essential commodities to the cardholders. Respondent No.2 has taken note of the plea of the petitioner and expressed some reservations on the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam on this aspect. On an overall consideration of the case, I am of the view that cancellation of authorization on the charges as framed against the petitioner is too disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The orders under challenge are, therefore, set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass an appropriate order, by imposing a lesser penalty, if the charges against the petitioner are found proved after considering the explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to file her explanation, within a period of three (3) weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. Pending passing of orders, the petitioner shall be permitted to function as fair price shop dealer. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd July, 2009 vrn