THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28833 of 2010 %18.01.2011 # Palle Peeraiah ...PETITIONER VERSUS $ The District Collector at Warangal and others. ...RESPONDENTS < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for PETITIONER: Mr.A.Ravinder ^Counsel for RESPONDENTS: AGP for Civil Supplies ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28833 of 2010 DT.18.01.2011 Between: Palle Peeraiah … Petitioner And The District Collector, at Warangal and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Ravinder Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated 09.02.2010, of respondent No.3, as confirmed in orders, dated 17.06.2010, and 12.11.2010, of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. I have heard Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Having regard to the peculiar nature of the order passed by respondent No.3 confirmed in appeal and revision by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively, this Court has passed the following interim order on 22.11.2010: “The impugned orders in this writ petition appear to be strange in the sense that though a show-cause notice was issued, explanation was received as also the reports from the Tahsildar, respondent No.3 has passed an order of suspension. It is not indicated therein as to whether the said suspension was substantive in nature or pending further enquiry, if any. If the suspension is by way of a substantive penalty, the same should be for a limited period. No such period is indicated. Conversely, if further enquiry is envisaged, respondent No.3 should have indicated therein the said fact and taken steps for completion of enquiry. Nothing is discernable from the order of respondent No.3, which has been affirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 in appeal and revision respectively. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies seeks time for filing counter affidavit clarifying the above facts.” A counter affidavit has since been filed by respondent No.3, who failed to address the issue raised by this Court in the above reproduced order, dated 22.11.2010. Under the provisions of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, respondent No.3 is empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose appropriate penalties. Though the said Order does not specifically provide for passing an order of suspension as interim measure, pending enquiry, the provisions of this Order and those of preceding Control Orders are interpreted by this Court to the effect that the order of suspension, pending enquiry, is concomitant to the power of the disciplinary authority and that therefore, even in the absence of an express provision, such a power is vested in the authority. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.3 has stated that having regard to the bad history of the petitioner, he has suspended the authorization after giving a show-cause notice and opportunity to the petitioner to submit his objections. It is axiomatic that an order of suspension can be either interim or final in nature. In contrast to an order of cancellation, an order of suspension can be for a limited period irrespective of whether such an order is interim or final in nature. In the light of the stand taken by respondent No.3, the impugned order passed by him can be construed as final in nature. However, curiously respondent No.3 failed to indicate the period for which the petitioner’s authorization is suspended, even if the same was intended to be as a measure of penalty. The impugned order thus suffers from a serious flaw rendering itself illegal and unenforceable. If respondent No.3 felt that suspension is the appropriate substantive penalty, he could have limited the same for a limited period. Conversely, if he felt that cancellation is the appropriate penalty, he should have imposed such a penalty. For the above-noted reasons, the impugned order, which is styled as suspension, cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. As a sequel, orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also quashed. Respondent No.3 is however given liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the findings rendered hereinabove. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36765 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:18.01.2011 Note: LR copies to be marked (b/o) VGB