THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6817 of 2011 Date:18.03.2011 Between: N. Nagendra ..... Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, Ananthapur and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings in RC.No.102/2011/A dated 11.03.2011 of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as the fair price shop dealer of Anandaraopeta Village in February, 2010 by the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Ananthapur, in place of respondent No.2, whose fair price shop authorization was suspended by the R.D.O. on certain allegations. By proceedings dated 27.10.2010, the R.D.O. has extended his authorization for a period of six months. But, at the instance of respondent No.2, respondent No.3, by the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2011, suspended the petitioner’s authorization. In the impugned order, respondent No.3 has referred to as many as seven charges and the enquiry report of the Deputy Tahsildar. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings are contrary to the second proviso to Sub-Clause (4) of Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’). Under second clause, respondent No.3 is conferred with the limited power of suspending the authorization for a period of 90 days only. Though the R.D.O. is the appointing authority, the Control Order vested certain limited disciplinary powers in respondent No.3. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that respondent No.3 has arrogated to himself the powers of appointing-cum-disciplinary authority, which is the R.D.O., without realising his limits of disciplinary power while issuing the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2011 are unsustainable and the same are accordingly quashed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.3 to send a report to R.D.O. on the basis of which the latter is left free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8477 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th March, 2011 GHN