AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.—Heard Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 finally by consent, by making Rule returnable forthwith.
The contention is, the Deputy Commissioner of Supplies, on 18.06.2007, allowed revision and set aside the orders of District Supply Officer (DSO) dated 08.05.2007 and directed enquiry on six points. Ignoring that, a show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 was served upon the petitioner which was replied by him. On 14.01.2009, the Tahsildar recommended a minor punishment. The DSO overlooked all this and on 15.06.2009 canceled the authorization of fair price shop forfeiting entire security deposit. The petitioner raised his grievance before the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 06.07.2009 and that authority directed fine of Rs. 1,000/- to be inflicted upon the petitioner and restored his authorization. Respondent No. 3 - complainant then approached the Hon''ble Minister and the Hon''ble Minister has restored the earlier order of cancellation of authorization.
Shri Patil, learned Counsel has invited attention to Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 to urge that without following the prescribed procedure, punishment has been inflicted for defaults of serious nature and the Hon''ble Minister has overlooked the three categories of defaults as noted therein. The learned Counsel further states that the material on record showing that nobody had complained against the establishment of the petitioner has not been evaluated. The fact that in past 12 years, there were no such incident is also overlooked.
With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have perused the relevant orders. The order dated 18.06.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) shows that the authority found that there were two enquiries and two different reports. Because of this finding, he felt that a third enquiry was necessary. The perusal of show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 shows that it was based on report of Tahasildar dated 2/8/2008 in pursuance of the order dated 18.06.2007 itself. It gave details of malpractices & 15 instances. It is, therefore, obvious that the authorization in favour of the petitioner was already canceled earlier and it was restored on 06.07.2009. The said investigation and old matter continued further and on 29.08.2008 show cause notice is issued in furtherance thereof. The report of Tahsildar on which the petitioner has placed reliance also does not exonerate the petitioner. It holds that for the food grains lifted by him, the petitioner was not in a position to give satisfactory explanation and there were irregularities in distribution. The recommendations of the Tahsildar to inflict minor punishment is, therefore, not very relevant. It can not affect the jurisdiction conferred by law on statutory authorities. The malpractices noticed can not be viewed as minor in any way. The DSO, therefore, has correctly observed that there were serious irregularities and hence has ordered cancellation of authorization and forfeiture of security deposit.
Deputy Commissioner on 06.07.2009 overlooked the fact that the shop was earlier already canceled and the said case itself was going on further. Deputy Commissioner, therefore, erroneously relied upon Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 and held that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity. Then, instead of directing department to give him proper opportunity, only on that ground, the order has been set aside by him and fine of Rs. 1,000/- came to be inflicted. The Deputy Commissioner has not recorded a finding that the conclusions drawn by DSO in his order dated 15.06.2009 are in any way erroneous or then charges proved against the petitioner were not of grave or serious nature. The Hon''ble Minister has noticed these aspects and therefore has interfered in the matter in revision and restored the penalty of forfeiture of the cancellation of authorization. There is no variation of Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991.
Earlier the Deputy Commissioner noticed two different reports and hence called for the third report. On this occasion said report dated 02.08.2008 is not even perused and issuance of show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 by DSO or reply dated 08.09.2008 by petitioner to it is conveniently overlooked to grant relief to petitioner. The fact that old case itself was going on is also forgotten and GR dated 12.11.1991 is relied upon to justify favour shown to petitioner. Even while so doing the finding in impugned order dated 15.06.2009 recorded by DSO on misconducts are not demonstrated to be either erroneous and categorization of the same as serious misconducts by State Government it said Government Resolution itself has been ignored. This attitude and approach of Deputy Commissioner as appellate authority functioning under an important welfare enactment is against the public interest and defeats the very purpose of public distribution system. This authority has itself violated the procedure and precautions to be adopted in such matters prescribed therein by Government to improve its penal actions and avoid adverse court orders on technical grounds. The order impugned herein & passed by the Hon. Minister in fact advances the spirit behind said Government Resolution and cause of public distribution system. Respondent No. 1 State Government needs to take stern steps to avoid such undue liberal approach on part of its officers.
In writ jurisdiction, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. In any case, violation of Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 cannot be a ground to invoke writ jurisdiction in present circumstances. I do not find any merit in writ petitioner and hence, the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.