THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18928 of 2009 ORDER: The Indian Oil Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, appointed the petitioner as a Distributor, for LPG Gas at Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry. Inspection was conducted, on 17.03.2009. It was found that there is a shortage of 54 cylinders of 14.2 kg., and 37 cylinders of 19 kg. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and a show cause notice for termination of the distributorship was also issued. The petitioner states that one of the employees committed irregularities in maintenance of the stock, and soon after it was noticed, a complaint was submitted to the police. It is stated that the cylinders that were found to be in shortage, were recovered within no time and the distribution was not affected at all. It is also stated that, inspection was conducted by the Company, once again, on 31.03.2009, and it was found that there is no shortage. The respondents issued proceedings, dated 26.08.2009, suspending the dealership of the petitioner, with immediate effect. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner resorted to several irregularities in the past also and proceedings have to be initiated, left with no alternative. It is also pleaded that the suspension ordered against the petitioner is pending enquiry and it cannot be treated as a punishment. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Being the Appointing Authority, the 1st respondent has the power to suspend the dealership, in case any irregularities are noticed. Even if there is no specific provision, in this regard, suspension pending enquiry into any irregularities, is recognized as ancillary and incidental to the power to cancel the dealership. The allegation against the petitioner is that, in the stock verification conducted on 17.03.2009, shortage of 57 cylinders of 14.2 kg., and 37 cylinders of 19 kg., was noticed. If this were to have been the state of affairs, obtaining as on the date of the impugned order, there would not have been any scope for this Court to interfere. The record discloses that, hardly within 15 days, another inspection was conducted, and on account of the submission of a police complaint by the petitioner, the missing cylinders were recovered. The statement that was prepared on the basis of inspection conducted on 31.03.2009, is not at all mentioned in the impugned proceedings. The respondents did not feel the necessity of suspending the petitioner, soon after the shortage was noticed. They waited for five months and issued the impugned order. In between, show cause notice was issued, the petitioner is said to have submitted her explanation and in subsequent inspection, the deficiency is found to have rectified. Suspension, pending enquiry, is resorted only to disable the person sought to be proceeded against from interfering with the evidence, or from continuing the wrongs and misdeeds attributed against him. In the instant case, the only development that has taken place between the date of noticing the irregularity and the date of suspension is that, the misdeed alleged against the petitioner stood rectified. Nothing objectionable was found between the period of first inspection and the date of order of suspension. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are unwarranted and unjustified. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents shall expedite the proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19-11-2009. GJ