Judgment This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in RC (M).No.312/2012, dated 28.09.2012, of respondent No.1, whereby he has purported to suspend the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. I have heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 has framed three charges and called for the petitioner’s explanation thereto. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 15.03.2012. Purporting to consider the petitioner’s explanation, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization and directing respondent No.2 to make alternative arrangements for distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop. Under Clause 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the appointing authority is empowered to add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer. Even though the power of suspension pending enquiry is not expressly conferred on the appointing authority, the Courts have recognized such power as concomitant to the power of suspension or cancellation of authorization as substantive penalty. Whenever serious allegations of omissions or commissions are brought to the notice of the appointing authority, he is entitled to exercise the power of suspending authorization pro tempore pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings and passing final order. After concluding enquiry, the appointing authority is entitled to pass an appropriate order either cancelling the authorization or suspending the same for a specified period as substantive penalty. Ordinarily, the power of interim suspension of authorization pending enquiry is invoked before calling for explanation and holding an enquiry. In such cases, the appointing authority should specify that such power is exercised pending enquiry. After receiving explanation and holding enquiry, the appointing authority shall pass a final order either exonerating the dealer or imposing on him the appropriate penalty of substantive nature either cancelling or suspending the authorization depending upon the gravity of the allegations and the evidence available to substantiate such allegations. In my opinion, the instant case does not fall in either of the above-mentioned categories. Having invited the explanation from the petitioner, respondent No.1 has rendered conclusive findings without holding an enquiry. In my opinion, the instant case does not fall in either of the above-mentioned categories. Having invited the explanation from the petitioner, respondent No.1 has rendered conclusive findings without holding an enquiry. Instead of passing a final order after enquiry, respondent No.1 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization without even indicating as to whether the said order was passed pending further enquiry. In case respondent No.1 intended to pass an order of suspension as a substantive penalty, he should have done so only after holding enquiry and specifying in the order the time limit for which the suspension is made. As respondent No.1 failed to follow this procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue as the dealer till such time as the enquiry into the charges framed against him is held and a final order is passed keeping in view the observations made herein above. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.42768 of 2012 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.