Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Rayapati Lakshmi Jaya Sudha Rani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 July, 2022

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                      1

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


             WRIT PETITION No.26424 of 2021


ORDER:-


     The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

    "to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the

petitioner authorization under suspension by his Proceedings No.CS/NUZ-2/GGM/0612023/2020, dated 20.10.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice."

2) Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil

Supplies.

3) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the

Fair Price Shop Dealer of the Shop bearing No. 0612023 of

Utukuru Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District, and

she has been conducting the said shop since 1993 without

any complaint from anybody. In the year, 2002, her husband

was appointed as a Language Pandit by the District Education

Officer, Krishna District. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued

show cause notice framing certain charges. Thereafter, she

submitted her explanation to the show cause notice issued by

the 2nd respondent. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued

Suspension Order, vide Proceedings No.CS/NUZ-

2/GGM/0612023/2020, dated 20.10.2020, on the ground that

a Criminal case was registered against the petitioner in

Cr.No.428 of 2020 under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section

7 of the Essential Commodities Act and also that her husband

was working as a Government Employee.

4) It is the further case of the petitioner that as per

Clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 03.12.2018, individuals

holding any public office like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,

President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Chairman of Zilla Paraza

Parishad, Presidents of Cooperative Societies Councilors or

Chairman of Municipality members of Zilla Parishad Territorial

Constituency (ZPTC) etc., or holding any office of profit

irrespective of the reservation shall not be eligible. The

appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer was in

the year 1993 and her husband was appointed as a Telugu

Pandit in the year 2002. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.4, dated

28.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 3.12.2018 have no

application. As such, the Suspension Order passed by the 2nd

respondent is contrary to the Government Orders mentioned

in the impugned Order. Finally, the counsel for the petitioner

prays to allow the Writ Petition.

5) To support his contention, he relied upon the judgment

in the case of J. Prameela v District Collector, Adilabad

District and others1.

2012 (5) ALT 669

6) The Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit

contending that on 17.09.2020, the SI of Police,

Gampalagudem P.S. caught 28.50 quintals of PDS rice, which

was stored to ready for diversion into black market at

Rajulapalem Village, Gampalagudem Mandal and filed a case

against the petitioner and two others vide FIR No.428 of 2020

under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 7 of Essential

Commodities Act. On 18.09.2020, the in-charge Deputy

Tahsildar (PDS) along with Village Revenue Officer, Utukuru,

inspected the FP shop of the petitioner in the presence of the

mediators and found 50 kgs of PDS rice excess variation

between the stock report of EPOS Machine and physical stocks

available in the FP shop. Thereafter, the Sub Collector,

Nuzvid, issued show cause notice dated 20.10.2020 to the

petitioner. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by

the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued the said suspension

order till completion of the enquiry.

7) It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that a

complaint was received from Utukuru Villagers of

Gampalagudem Mandal that the petitioner's husband is a

Government Employee and her family is having Ac.8.44 cents

of agricultural land, 3 RCC houses and also having one double

bed room flat in Guntupalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal.

Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Gampalagudem vide

Lr.Rc.B.134/2020, dated 20.04.2021, stated that the

petitioner has been suspended many times on illegal

transportation of PDS rise and the husband of the petitioner is

a Government employee. The petitioner is also having

agricultural lands. Thereafter, the Sub Collector, Nuzvid, sent

a letter to District Supply Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam in

Rc.D2/08-0612023, dated 09.06.2021, seeking clarification

that the petitioner is eligible as Fair Price Shop Deader if the

Petitioner's spouse was appointed to Government Service.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition

aggrieved by the suspension order passed by the 2nd

respondent. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Writ

Petition.

8) This Court gave serious consideration to the

arguments advanced by the respective counsel and carefully

perused the material available on record. The authorization

of the petitioner, who is working as Fair Price Shop Dealer

was suspended by the 2nd Respondent on 20.10.2020. On the

same day, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner

calling for her explanation within seven days. In the show-

cause notice three charges are framed against the petitioner.

9) On careful examination of these charges, it appears

charge Nos.1 and 2 are interrelated. The inspecting officer

has found variation of 50 kgs. excess of PDS rice in the shop

of the petitioner. It is alleged that the said variation amounts

to contravention of Clause 12(e) of Andhra Pradesh State

T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018. On the said allegation only, a

case in F.I.R. No.428 of 2020 was registered against the

petitioner. As such, the charge Nos.1 and 2 are interrelated.

As already proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential

Commodities Act are initiated, wherein the competent

authority has to decide the legality and validity of the seizure.

10) The contention of the petitioner is that the excess

variation pointed out is minor and falls within the permissible

variation of 1.5% provided under Clause 29(e) of Andhra

Pradesh State T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018. In the show-

cause notice or suspension order issued by the 2nd

Respondent, dated 20.10.2020, there is no mention about the

total stocks of PDS rice issued to the petitioner's shop for the

month of the September, 2019. In fact, the 1.5% permissible

variation has to be calculated on the total stocks released to

the particular fair-price shop in that particular month, wherein

inspection was conducted. It is also not mentioned in the

counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents whether that 1.5%

permissible variation provided under Clause 29(e) of Andhra

Pradesh State T.P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2018 was considered

or not by the inspecting authority at the time of seizing stocks

from the petitioner and registering a case against her.

However, this issue has to be considered by the disciplinary

authority (i.e.) 2nd Respondent herein and by the competent

authority to decide the validity of the seizure in Section 6A

proceedings.

11) The next charge framed against the petitioner is that

her husband is working as Teacher in Zilla Parishad High

School. As such, the contention of the Respondents is that

the petitioner has contravened guideline No.XII (iii) of

G.O.Ms.No.32 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I)

Department, dated 03.12.2018. This Court carefully has gone

through the said G.O. In the said G.O., it is not mentioned

that the said G.O. is having retrospective effect or prospective

effect. When there is no specific mention about the application

of the G.O., it has to be considered that the said G.O. is

having only prospective effect. Admittedly, the petitioner was

appointed as fair-price shop dealer in the year, 1993 and her

husband was appointed as a Teacher in the year 2002 and as

such, the said G.O. is not applicable to the case of the

petitioner.

12) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance of the order passed by this Court in J. Prameela's

case (supra). In the said order, an identical issue was raised

and a learned single Judge of this Court while considering the

fact that the husband of the writ petitioner/fair-price shop

dealer therein was said to be employed as a Teacher with the

Zilla Parishad High School, held at para No.11 as extracted

hereinunder:

"11. Therefore, the fact that, the writ petitioner's husband is employed as a teacher with the Zilla Parishad High School cannot be treated as an absolute bar for her selection or bar for her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer. By using the expression "Specifically" in Clause 12(3) of the guidelines, the bar contemplated is not an absolute one but is only a preferable one. As the writ petitioner was selected at the regular selections, it is obvious that, she has been picked up as she is the most meritorious and deserving. Assuming that, she is the only one candidate who had applied for dealership, even then, her appointment as a fair-price shop dealer made on 05.08.2005 should not have been interdicted at all subsequently thereto. Above all, the writ petitioner claimed to be a member belonging to schedule tribe. The State Government on a top priority basis is endeavoring its very best to improve upon the lot of scheduled tribes. It, therefore, stands to reason that the appointment of the writ petitioner as a fair-price shop dealer at Utnoor should not be interdicted."

13) In fact, the order relied by the learned counsel for

the petitioner rendered by this Court prior to issuance of

G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 03.12.2018. However, the proposition

of law laid down in the said order is applicable to the present

case.

14) For the reasons stated above, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the 2nd Respondent has not applied his

mind and no justifiable reasons are given for keeping the

petitioner under suspension, which is in violation of principles

of natural justice, as held by this Court in K. Prabhavati vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh 2 . Therefore, the proceedings

issued by the 2nd Respondent, dated 20.10.2020, is