IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.22549 OF 2008 B e t w e e n: Ponnuru Srinivasa Rao. - - - Petitioner. A n d The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, and two others. - - - Respondents. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the first respondent in Proceedings No.B1/RP/11/2008, dated 26-08-2008, consequently the order of the second respondent in Proceedings No.B1/SRA/20/2007, dated 22-02-2008, consequently the order of the third respondent in Proceedings RCG.1117/2006, Dated 02-06-2007 as null and void and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar. Counsel for the Respondents : G. P. for Civil Supplies. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.22549 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein who is a fair price shop dealer in respect of a shop located at Vadlamannadu Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District, has filed this writ petition challenging the orders of the first Respondent-District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, in Proceedings No.B1/RP/11/2008, dated 26-08-2008, confirming the orders of the second respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, in Proceedings No.B1/SRA/20/2007, dated 22-02- 2008 and the orders of the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District, in Proceedings RCG.1117/2006, dated 02-06-2007, as illegal. 2. The Deputy Tahsildar, P.D.S. inspected the premises on 27-11-2006 and submitted a report to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudlavalleru, and based on that, MRO submitted a Report to the 3rd Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer alleging that the petitioner along with the in-charge panchayat secretary of Vadlamannadu village and the person in-charge of Mandal Level Supply Point, Gudivada, in collusion, had drawn Qts. 156.25 Kgs of SGRY rice instead of Qts. 56.25 Kgs by tampering the original release order and that the petitioner was not maintaining the stock registers and there was a shortage of PDS rice. Based on the report of the said M.R.O., the third respondent framed the following charges against the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. “Charge – I : Being a responsible F.P. Shop Dealer, you were not in the F.P. Shop on 27-11-2006 when the Deputy Tahsildar, PDS inspected the shop and another person was distributing the commodities at the time. Charge – II : Being a responsible dealer you have not kept the stock and other relevant registers made available in the shop. Charge – III : Being a responsible dealer you have not supposed to sign in stock issue register which was maintained in the M.L.S. Point but you have signed and lifted the SGRY rice. Which is quite contrary to the rules in force. Charge – IV : Out of 156.25 qts. The total quantity of S.G.R.Y. rice lifted from M.L.S. Point Gudivada, 100 qts. of rice was kept in other than the premises of F.P. Shop. You being a responsible F.P. Shop Dealer you have to keep the commodities in the F.P. Shop locality only and you have kept the 100 qts of rice out of the F.P. Shop area clearly indicating your malafide intention. Charge – V : The distribution particulars of 56 qts. of SGRY rice are not available in distribution register as contemplated under rules.” 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to each of the charges. With reference to Charge No.1, the petitioner stated that the person found in the shop at the time of inspection was none other than his own father and that he used to distribute the stocks in his absence. He further explained that there is no prohibition under the A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2001, to allow family members of any fair price shop dealer to distribute the commodities in the absence of fair price shop dealer. In reply to Charge No.2, the petitioner explained that the stock had been kept in the alternative place and that the registers were seized only from the shop. He further explained that he also maintained the stock and sales registers for SGRY rice and all the registers were accessible to the inspecting authorities. In reply to Charge No.3, he stated that he along with the Panchayat Secretary, brought the stock register along with the stock of Qts. 156.25 Kgs and after unloading the stock at the go-down, the Panchayat Secretary, who is also the route officer, insisted him to sign in the register in token of receipt of the said quintals of rice and on such insistence, he signed in the register. He pleaded that signing in the register at the shop at the instance of the Panchayat Secretary was not an irregularity. As regards Charge No.4, he stated that he received SGRY rice on 24-11- 2006 at about 09-00 p.m. and after verification, he found that the authorities had sent Qts. 156.25 Kgs instead of Qts. 56.25 Kgs by mistake. He noted the receipt of the entire quantity in the stock register on the same day and kept the rice in the go-down separately. He had only distributed a quantity of Qts. 56.25 Kgs to the beneficiaries of the Food For Work Programme on 25-11-2006 and the balance of Qts. 100-00 Kgs was still available in the go-down and he had no intention to misappropriate the same. With regard to Charge No.5, he stated that he had distributed Qts. 56.25 Kgs on 25-11-2006 and noted the same in the distribution register. The register was seized by the police of Gudlavalleru along with other registers. 4. The third respondent herein received the said explanation of the petitioner and passed orders in Rc.G.1117/2006, dated 02-06- 2007, canceling the authorization. The order to the extent relevant is as follows : “I have gone through the records and the explanation submitted by the delinquent. The explanation submitted by the delinquent is not convincing. The delinquent dealer violated the conditions 4, 6, 11 and 13 laid down in the authorization, prescribed under Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. In view of the irregularities committed by Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Vadlamannadu Village of Gudlavalleru Mandal, the authorization of the delinquent is hereby cancelled.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order is demonstrably clear that the said order is cryptic and bereft of any reasons. The third respondent did not consider the explanation of the petitioner at all. The third respondent did not give any reasons nor he adverted to the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred a statutory Appeal before the second respondent herein. The petitioner specifically pleaded in the appeal inter-alia that the order of the third respondent was a single sentence order without any reasons and without application of mind. He further pleaded that 5 charges were framed against him in the show cause notice and while denying the said charges, sufficient explanation was offered to each of the charge, but the third respondent did not consider the same. However, the second respondent dismissed the said Appeal by orders in proceedings No.B1/SRA/20/2007, dated 22-02-2008. A perusal of the said order shows that the second respondent called for the remarks from the third respondent and by virtue of the said remarks, he framed two fresh charges which are as follows : “1) Drawing of Q. 156-25 of S.G.R.Y. rice through fraudulent methods including tampering the records and diversion of Q.100-00 Rice fraudulently lifted from M.L.S.Point. 2) Shortage of Q. 4-00 of P.D.S. Rice in the F.P. Shop.” 7. The second respondent proceeded to examine the said issues and concluded that the said charges were proved beyond doubt and accordingly dismissed the Appeal. The petitioner challenged the said orders by filing a Revision Petition before the first respondent and the first respondent herein, on the same reasons as mentioned by the second respondent, dismissed the Revision Petition by orders in Proceedings No.B1/RP/11/2008, dated 26-08-2008. That is how the petitioner is before this Court. 8. Heard Sri K. Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the respondents are violative of basic principles of natural justice. He further contends that the petitioner did not commit any irregularities nor violated the provisions of Control Order, 2001. He is not guilty of any of the charges framed against him. He further contends that the petitioner offered sufficient explanation in respect of each of the charge and none of the respondents considered the said explanation. He further contends that the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities without examining the charges framed against the petitioner, based on which the authorization was cancelled, framed altogether fresh charges. The counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the orders of the Appellate and Revision authorities are violative of basic principles of natural justice. 10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was aware that he was entitled to receive stock of Qts. 56.25 Kgs only whereas he received Qts. 156.25 Kgs of SGRY rice and kept the stock at a place other than the shop with an intention to divert the same to the regular market. He further contends that the authorization was rightly cancelled and the same does not require any interference. 11. I have carefully examined the rival contentions with reference to the material and the orders passed by the respondents. The order of the third respondent, dated 02-06-2007 extracted above is cryptic and perfunctory. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation in respect of each of the charges and the third respondent being the disciplinary authority exercising quasi-judicial function, is expected to consider the said explanation and pass a reasoned order. Therefore, the said order of the third respondent cannot be justified at all. 12. It is the specific case of the petitioner in the Appeal filed by him before the second respondent that the third respondent passed a non reasoned order and that at any rate, he was not guilty of the charges framed against him. The appellate authority is expected to consider the Appeal within the scope and ambit of the orders impugned in the Appeal. If for any reason, the Appellate authority is of the opinion that the material on record requires further probe into the matter, the Appellate authority is always competent to change its mind and remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for appropriate enquiry. In the instant case, the second respondent entertained remarks from the third respondent who cancelled the authorization and framed two fresh charges, extracted above, and cancelled the authorization based on the said charges. A perusal of the order shows that the Appeal Petition was heard on 04-12-2007 and the Advocate of the petitioner reiterated the grounds of Appeal and requested for restoration of his authorization. It also further shows that the order was passed based on the records including the remarks offered by the third respondent herein. It is therefore apparent that the petitioner was not even notified of the said two charges framed by the Appellate Authority. Such a procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority should be construed as violative of the basic principles of natural justice. The first respondent herein has merely reproduced the order of the second respondent and dismissed the Revision Petition. 13. On the above analysis, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders passed by each of the respondents, being violative of principles of natural justice, are unsustainable and accordingly set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the third respondent herein for fresh consideration. The third respondent, after due notice to the petitioner as per law, is directed to consider the matter denovo and pass appropriate orders as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. DATE: 12-11-2010. Dsh.