JUDGMENT By the Court.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.9.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) with the further prayer seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to restore the supply of scheduled commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the card holders. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner happens to be fair price shop agent of Village Megi Nagla, Tehsil Faridpur, District Bareilly. For running the fair price shop an agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. It appears the petitioner has fallen ill and applied for 15 days’ leave on 22.2.2006. The required leave was sanctioned by the concerned authority. Thereafter, after expiry of the period of leave the petitioner has resumed his duties as fair price shop agent on 30.5.2006. 3. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has further made an application seeking leave with effect from 18.7.2009 to 5.8.2009 on the ground of illness of his wife. This application was filed on 16.7.2009. On the said application, the respondent No. 2 has suspended the agreement to run fair price shop executed in favour of the petitioner on 21.7.2009 and attached the cardholders of the petitioner’s shop permanently with the shop of respondent No. 3, one Sri Om Prakash fair price shop agent of Village Sarkada, Tehsil Faridpur, District Bareilly. It appears while the petitioner’s wife was under treatment, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.9.2009 requiring the petitioner to file his reply within three days as to why recommendation be not made for cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop for his absence. Since the petitioner’s wife had been ailing, the petitioner could not furnish his reply and rushed to Delhi for treatment of his wife. On return, the petitioner came to know that his agreement to run fair price shop has been cancelled by the respondent No. 2 on 26.9.2009. Immediately after coming to know about the order of cancellation the petitioner has filed an application on 25.6.2010 narrating the entire facts for non-appearance and further to restore the agreement executed in his favour for running fair price shop but nothing has been done by the respondents. 4. Immediately after coming to know about the order of cancellation the petitioner has filed an application on 25.6.2010 narrating the entire facts for non-appearance and further to restore the agreement executed in his favour for running fair price shop but nothing has been done by the respondents. 4. While assailing the impugned order of cancellation, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that there is no provision for sanction of medical leave and further the petitioner has failed to file his reply to the show-cause notice sent to the petitioner, whereas there is a specific provision for grant of leave to the fair price shop agent and further non filing of reply to the show cause notice was inevitable as the petitioner’s wife was seriously ill and he had to reach Delhi for her treatment. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, had the proper opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have furnished his reply in detail. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier suspension order as well as the impugned cancellation orders have been passed in hot haste manner without there being any provision for the same on such kind of absence. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, in support of the order passed by the respondent 2 submitted that there was no scope except to pass the impugned order of cancellation as the petitioner did not furnish his reply and was absent without there being any information. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who happens to be fair price shop agent has been running the fair price shop with effect from 1993 under an agreement. 8. There has been no complaint against the petitioner with regard to the distribution of the scheduled commodities. The agreement to run fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished his reply to the show-cause notice dated 14.9.2009. 8. There has been no complaint against the petitioner with regard to the distribution of the scheduled commodities. The agreement to run fair price shop of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished his reply to the show-cause notice dated 14.9.2009. Show-cause notice was only to the effect that the petitioner should immediately come back and state reasons for not coming back to Sub-Divisional Officer, Faridpur, otherwise in absence of any Government order for grant of medical leave, the recommendation will be made for cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop. 9. Show-cause notice was only to the effect that the petitioner should immediately come back and state reasons for not coming back to Sub-Divisional Officer, Faridpur, otherwise in absence of any Government order for grant of medical leave, the recommendation will be made for cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop. 9. Before testing the validity of impugned order of cancellation the certain conditions of the agreement on the strength of which petitioner has been running the fair price shop is required to be looked into, which are quoted below : 12¼1½ vFkhdrkZ viuh nqdku nSfud lapkyu la{ke Ákf/kdkjh }kjk fufnZ"V le;kof/k ds nkSjku vkSj vuq:i gh lqfuf'pr djsxkA ¼2½ vfHkdrkZ mu fnuksa dks NksM+dj tks mŸkj Áns'k nqdku okf.kT; vf/k"Bku vf/kfu;e] 1962 ds v/khu canh ds fnu gks] fdlh Hkh fnu viuh nqdku can ugha djsxk vFkok turk ds lkFk viuk dkjksckj LFkfxr ugha j[ksxk tc rd dh l{ke Ákf/kdkjh ,d lkekU; vFkok fo'ks"k vkns'k }kjk ,slk funsZ"k u nsaA ¼3½ vfHkdrkZ dks vkiokfnd fLFkfr esa vodk'k Áo`Ÿk 'kkldh; fu;eksa ds varxZr ns; gksxkA 20- vfHkdrkZ fdlh mi vfHkdrkZ dh fu;qfDr ugha djsxk] u viuh ,tsUlh ¼nqdku½ dks fdlh Hkh ek/;e ls fdlh vU; O;fDr dks vUrfjr djsxk vkSj u fdlh vU; nqdku dk lapkyu vFkok dkjksckj djk;sxkA 22 ¼1½ ;fn vkSj tc fdlh ,rn~ iwoZ mYyf[kr 'ksrksZ vkSj Áfrca/kksa esa ls fdlh dk Hkh vfHkdrkZ }kjk mya?ku fd;k tk; vFkok@vkSj vuqikyu u fd;k tk;s rks l{ke Ákf/kdkjh] fyf[kr :i ls Li"Vr% dkj.k crkrs gq, vfHkdrkZ }kjk tek ÁfrHkwfr dh jkf'k vius foosdkuqlkj vkaf'kd vFkok laiw.kZ :i ls 'kklu ds i{k tCr dj ldrk gS vFkok bl vuqca/k i= dks fuyafcr djrs gq, vfHkdrkZ ds fo:) vxzsrj tkap ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la;ksftr djkdj ÁfØ;k esa yk ldrk gS vkSj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh ÁfØ;k esa vfHkdrkZ dks mlds fo:) lk{;ksa dk voyksdu djus dk volj Ánku djrs gq, vfHkdrkZ dks viuk i{k ÁLrqr djus dk volj Ánku djrs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ds vk?kkj ij fo;kjksijkUr vfHkdrkZ dk vuqca/k i= fujLr dj ldrk gS rFkk lEiw.kZ ÁfrHkwfr jkf'k 'kklu ds i{k esa tCr dj ldrk gSA ¼2½ ;fn fdlh Ádj.k esa vfHkdrkZ dh dsoy ÁfrHkwfr dh gh jkf'k vkaf'kd vFkok iw.kZ :i ls l{ke Ákf/kdkjh }kjk tCr dh tkrh gS rks tCr ÁfrHkwfr jkf'k dh ÁfriwfrZ vfHkdrkZ }kjk dj fn;s tkus ds mijkUr gh vfHkdrkZ }kjk iqu% nqdku dk lapkyu fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼3½ ,sls fdlh Hkh vkns'k ds fo:) vfHkdrkZ }kjk mŸkj Áns'k vuqlwfpr oLrq forj.k vkns'k 2004 ds Ákfo/kku 28 ds vUrxZr vihy Ákf/kdkjh ds le{k fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds vUnj vihy nkf[ky dh tk ldsxhA 10. From the bare perusal of above conditions of the agreement, it transpires that condition No. 12 (3) provides for grant of leave in accordance with the Government rules and condition No. 20 provides that the fair price shop agent will not be permitted to hand over the shop to run by another person. Condition No. 22 (1) provides that for breach of any of the condition of the agreement, the competent authority shall issue a show-cause notice and thereafter he may forfeit full security or may suspend the agreement of fair price shop agent or after affording a full opportunity of hearing and right to adduce the evidence, may cancel the agreement of fair price shop agent. If the condition Nos. 12 (3), 20 and 22 (1) are read together then it will transpire that there is a specific provision for grant of leave in accordance with the Government rules. Further in view of condition No. 20 since the fair price shop cannot be run by another person, therefore, there is a provision of attachment and grant of leave etc. In view of condition No. 22 (1) the order of cancellation can only be passed if there is a breach of any condition of the agreement. We have gone through the entire conditions of agreement which has been shown to us by learned standing counsel Sri Rajani Kant Tiwari. From the perusal of agreement we do not find that any of the condition of the agreement has been breached by the petitioner as when the petitioner has applied for leave on the ground of illness of his wife on 16.7.2009, immediately thereafter the respondent No. 2 has passed an order on 21.7.2009 attaching the fair price shop of the petitioner permanently with the shop of respondent No. 3 Sri Om Prakash. Prior to this, there is no indication either in the order or in show-cause notice that the petitioner has ever committed any irregularity in distribution of the scheduled commodities or has breached any of the condition of the agreement therefore the only reason for cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop is absence on account of illness of his wife. The question would arise whether for such absence the petitioner’s fair price shop could be cancelled. The question would arise whether for such absence the petitioner’s fair price shop could be cancelled. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the same has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has neither turned up pursuant to the show cause notice dated 14.9.2009 nor furnished his reply, in this way he had breached the conditions of the agreement. We are unable to swallow the reason assigned by the respondent No. 2 for cancelling the agreement to run fair price shop of the petitioner as the petitioner in very categorical words has stated that as his wife was seriously ill therefore neither he could file his reply to the show-cause notice nor he could turned up as required through show-cause notice. 11. From the perusal of the show-cause notice, it is apparent that only three days’ time was given to the petitioner to furnish the reply. Condition No. 22 (1) of the agreement enjoin the duty on the respondents to provide adequate opportunity of hearing and the right to adduce the evidence to the fair price shop agent before passing an order of cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop and for that charge has to be levelled in the form of charge-sheet. 12. We are of the opinion that opportunity of hearing means the effective opportunity of hearing meaning thereby sufficient time has to be offered for furnishing the reply. Further the charges on which agreement is required to be cancelled has to be reduced in writing so that fair price shop agent may submit the reply in detail. Here in this case except a show-cause notice issued by the Supply Inspector there is no specific charge-sheet issued to the petitioner by the competent authority before cancelling the agreement to run fair price shop and the order has been passed only on the recommendation of the Supply Inspector. Therefore we find that there is no proper charge-sheet issued by the competent authority, as defined under Order 2 (i) of the U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution Order 2004, to cancel the agreement of a fair price shop agent. 13. Therefore we find that there is no proper charge-sheet issued by the competent authority, as defined under Order 2 (i) of the U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution Order 2004, to cancel the agreement of a fair price shop agent. 13. We are of the view that the recommendation made by the Supply Inspector dated 14.9.2009 may have been made a basis for issuing a charge-sheet by the competent authority but that cannot be treated as charge-sheet and in absence of charge-sheet the impugned order could not have been passed, therefore we find no substance in the submission of learned standing counsel that opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioner. 14. In fact this is a case where no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Further we find that the impugned order has been passed in hot haste manner without application of mind and without looking into the relevant conditions of the agreement as we have noticed that there is no such condition in the agreement for which the petitioner’s agreement to run fair price shop has been cancelled. In this case, it is apparent on the face of record that after applying for leave the petitioner left for treatment of his wife and there is nothing on record to indicate whether the leave was sanctioned to the petitioner. Moreover it is on record that after filing the application by the petitioner his agreement to run fair price shop was suspended and his shop was permanently attached with the shop of respondent No. 3. In these circumstances, we find that there was sufficient reason to believe that no further application for leave was necessary as the shop was permanently attached with the shop of respondent No. 3. The alleged show-cause notice issued by Supply Inspector contains that there is a hindrance in distribution of scheduled commodities to the public and on this pretext the petitioner’s reply was required within three days.We do not find any material available on record from which it can be inferred that there was any hindrance in distribution of scheduled commodities to the public, as the petitioner’s fair price shop was attached with the shop of respondent No. 3 and there is no indication on record that there had been any complaint with regard to distribution of scheduled commodities and in case there was any hindrance, for that petitioner cannot be blamed. 15. 15. Otherwise also the only reason for cancellation of agreement appears to be petitioner’s absence which has now been explained by the petitioner in the writ petition, i.e. the illness of petitioner’s wife. Now it has to be seen that for such reason, the agreement to run fair price shop could be cancelled particularly in the circumstances where there had been no complaint against the petitioner’s work as fair price shop agent with effect from 1993. During this long period of about 16 years on two occasions the petitioner has been absent, on first occasion on account of his illness and on second occasion on account of illness of his wife. 16. The condition No. 12 (3) of the conditions of agreement provides that leave etc. in exceptional circumstances be granted to the fair price shop agent according to the Government rules. It is not a case where there is no provision of grant of leave. From the perusal of record it transpires that after receipt of application of the petitioner for granting the leave, the district supply officer has suspended the petitioner’s agreement and attached the shop of the petitioner with the respondent No. 3 permanently meaning thereby the suspension had to continue till the petitioner’s resuming duty as fair price shop agent. Hence, there was no scope for the respondents to initiate any proceeding for cancellation of agreement on the ground of absence. 17. Otherwise also we are of the view that performance of duty either by Government servants or persons functioning under the statutory contract is utmost concern of an employee or person who is working under the contract but simultaneously they also owe certain duties to manage their family affairs as the performance of public duties as well as to look after the family affairs are inter-woven both have closed nexus with each other and in absence of any one of it the functioning of social life is not possible. The person working under the terms of the contract is required to complete the contract in terms of the agreement, simultaneously he is also duty bound to perform his duty towards his family affairs. No doubt, the importances has to be given to the performance of public duty but simultaneously under such circumstances as in the case of the petitioner, the performance of duty towards wife cannot be ignored. No doubt, the importances has to be given to the performance of public duty but simultaneously under such circumstances as in the case of the petitioner, the performance of duty towards wife cannot be ignored. Here in this case, the petitioner’s wife has been ailing and the petitioner after giving an application seeking leave has proceeded for treatment of his wife and after her cure when he came back, he filed an application for resuming his duty of fair price shop agent. This kind of absence cannot be treated as deliberate absence. We are of the view that for such kind of absence, such action are not warranted particularly in the circumstances where there is no inconvenience to the public in getting the scheduled commodities for which fair price shop agents are appointed. The Apex Court in the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Panjab and others, JT 1996 2 SC 684, while dealing with the dismissal order of a constable for absence on duty for about nine months held as under........... 18. It is true that discipline is required to be maintained. However, absence may sometimes be inevitable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, an opportunity may be given to the appellant to work efficiently to prove his excellence. 19. After observing so the Apex Court has set aside the order of discharge passed by the disciplinary authority and the judgment of the Courts and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. Here in this case the petitioner remained absent on duty because of the typical problem in his wife’s delivery. 20. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 34630 of 1997 (Vimal Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and others) decided on 18.8.2006 has taken the same view where on absence on the ground of serious ailment of the wife the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. 21. This case also stand almost on the similar footing as in this case also the petitioner’s wife was seriously ill. 22. In view of that we find that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 23. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.9.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. 22. In view of that we find that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 23. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.9.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to resume the supply of the scheduled commodities to the petitioner in accordance with law. —————