THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3178 of 2011 Date:14.02.2011 Between: M. Maheswar ..... Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, Medak and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.B. Tara Sujatha Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 01.02.2011 of respondent No.1, whereby he has removed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. Heard Smt.B.Tara Sujatha, leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner was fair price shop dealer of Sirgapur Village, Kalher Mandal, Medak District. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 removed the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership purportedly on the ground that in his communication dated 29.02.2011, respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.1 to take appropriate action against the petitioner in view of certain complaints made by the villagers and that accordingly, the petitioner was found guilty of six charges. A reading of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has not only framed charges but also given conclusive findings to the effect that the petitioner is guilty of those charges. There is no reference to any prior notice to the petitioner before respondent No.1 holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges. Under second proviso to clause 7 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008, respondent No.1 has power to suspend the authorization of fair price shop for a period not exceeding 90 days pending enquiry into the charges. Respondent No.1 is neither appointing nor disciplinary authority empowered to hold an enquiry. Only in cases where enquiry into the charges is pending before the disciplinary authority respondent No.1 is empowered to exercise the limited power of suspension for a period not exceeding 90 days. From the facts noted above, it is evident that respondentNo.1 usurped the power of the Appointing/Disciplinary authority. As such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed. This order, however, does not prevent respondent No.2 from initiating enquiry and taking appropriate action against the petitioner, if he is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner is guilty of commissions and omissions. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3938 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th February, 2011 GHN