THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.29519 and 29528 of 2010 DT.26.11.2010 Between: Sri Morampudi Satyanarayana … Petitioner And The Govt.of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri E.V.S.S.Acharyulu For Sri K.Gani Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: COMMON ORDER: Two orders, which are very strange in nature passed by respondent No.3, are the subject matter of these two writ petitions. The petitioners are fair price shop dealers of Shop Nos.25 and 27 respectively of Chellur Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. On the purported preliminary enquiry, respondent No.3 has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioners is that instead of distributing two liters to the persons, who possess gas connections, and three liters to those who do not possess such connections, the petitioners have distributed one and two liters respectively. A show- cause notice, dated 31.08.2010, was issued by respondent No.3, to which, the petitioners have submitted their explanations denying the allegations. Purporting to consider these explanations, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned orders, wherein he suspended the petitioners’ authorizations for contravention of the A.P.State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘2008 Order’). I have heard Sri E.V.S.S.Acharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Under Clause 5 of 2008 Order, respondent No.3 is vested with the power of cancellation or suspension of authorization. This power of cancellation or suspension, as the case may be, envisaged in this provision is substantive in nature. However, the Courts have held, as incidental or ancillary to the main power, the competent authority can exercise the power of suspension, pending enquiry, where facts of the case warrant such action. Therefore, ordinarily when the disciplinary proceedings are initiated, depending upon the gravity of the allegations, the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority, as the case may be, passes orders of suspension purely as an interim measure. Such power is not exercised where after a show-cause notice is issued and explanation is received, because at that stage, the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority can pass a final order, after completing the enquiry. In these cases, respondent No.3 has not exercised his power of suspending the authorizations of the petitioners as an interim measure, pending enquiry. However, very curiously, respondent No.3 after calling for explanation and purporting to consider the same, has passed the impugned orders, suspending the authorizations of the petitioners and directing the Tahsildar to register criminal cases. Respondent No.3 has not indicated in the order about the nature of power exercised by him i.e., whether the order of suspension is interim or substantive. Respondent No.3 has failed to indicate the duration of suspension either. A careful consideration of these orders thus convinces me to hold that the same do not fit into the scheme of 2008 Order. Having received the explanations from the petitioners and the report from respondent No.4, nothing would have prevented respondent No.3 from passing a final order instead of choosing an ad hoc course. Furthermore, by a cryptic statement, respondent No.3 has held that after considering the explanations of the petitioners and perusal of the record, he has resorted to suspension of the petitioners’ authorizations. Having issued the show-cause notice and called for explanation, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.3 to refer to the contents of the explanations and give reasons for rejection of the same. Respondent No.3 failed to follow this basic principle of law in issuing the impugned orders. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and they are accordingly quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to re-consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners and pass a final order under Clause 5 of 2008 Order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. As a consequence of quashing of the impugned orders, the petitioners shall be continued as fair price shop dealers till passing of a fresh order, after enquiry. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, W.P.M.P.Nos.37611 and 37622 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 26.11.2010. VGB