JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—A complaint dated 4.1.2016 was filed on Tehsil Day by one Abid Khan. On said complaint, matter was enquired, during which statement of card holders were recorded. After the enquiry, the respondent No. -2 after noting statement of card holders of fair price shop in question and recording his finding, passed order dated 15.1.2016 for suspension of said fair price shop. Against said order dated 15.1.2016, the petitioner had preferred appeal No. -20/2016 (Kamruddin Khan v. State of U.P.), which was dismissed by the judgment dated 12.5.2016 of respondent No. -2, Deputy Commissioner (Foods), Bareilly Division, Bareilly. Against these orders dated 15.1.2016 and 12.5.2016, present writ petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during enquiry, he was not furnished with copy of enquiry report, the explanation given by him was not properly considered, the affidavit of witnesses submitted by petitioner were not considered and even stock register was not asked from him and impugned order of suspension was passed. Therefore, said order is erroneous. His further submission is that these facts were not considered by respondent No. -2, who had also passed erroneous order dated 12.5.2016 in appeal, so these orders should be quashed. 3. In reply, standing counsel submitted that the petitioner is not a Government employee to seek opportunity of hearing in departmental enquiry. His status is that of a person, who has been given permission to run a fair price shop on contract, for convenience of public. He further submitted that impugned order was passed after preliminary enquiry on complaint, and after considering explanation and evidences available by respondent No. 3, when he had reached to conclusion that in preliminary enquiry, petitioner was found guilty of irregularities. His further submission is that if any further evidence was to be given by petitioner during preliminary enquiry, then he had opportunity for the same during appeal, which was not afforded by him. He further submitted that during enquiry, it is incumbent upon the agent of fair price shop to produce documents and concerned registers regarding allegations made against him. His further submission is that impugned order is only that of suspension and not for cancellation of shop. In these proceedings, final enquiry is proposed, where petitioner would be afforded opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. His further submission is that impugned order is only that of suspension and not for cancellation of shop. In these proceedings, final enquiry is proposed, where petitioner would be afforded opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. So far contention of non-furnishing of alleged enquiry report and reliance on the judgment dated 29.3.2016 of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 6217 of 2014, and also the judgment dated 22.1.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 27164 of 2013 Smt. Manju Devi v. State of U.P. Said judgments cited by petitioner are regarding cancellation of shop after final enquiry, in which it was held that for replying the charges for conducting proceedings of cancellation of shop, and enquiry report should be furnished. But in this matter, after finding the glaring irregularities during preliminary enquiry, initiated on the basis of complaint filed in Tehsil Diwas, the impugned order was passed when respondent No. -3 had found sufficient evidence of irregularities committed by the petitioner. 5. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854 , the Apex Court had held: “In short a preliminary enquiry is for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of a Government servant in which he may or may not be associated so that the authority concerned may decide whether or not to subject the servant concerned to the enquiry necessary under Article 311 for inflicting one of the three major punishments mentioned therein. Such a preliminary enquiry may even be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of Government, though usually for the sake of fairness, explanation is taken from the servant concerned even as such an enquiry. But at that stage he has no right to be heard for the enquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government and it is only when the Government decides to hold a regular departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting one of the three major punishments that the Government servant gets the protection of Article 311 and all the rights that that protection implies as already indicated above. There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the Government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the Government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the Government servant is entitled to the protection of that Article.” 6. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 299 , the Apex Court had clarified the status of preliminary inquiry as under: “The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.” 7. It is also pertinent that in this matter, no separate preliminary enquiry report appears to have been prepared. After enquiry from the card holders, their names and statements were noted in brief in impugned order and simultaneously finding of irregularities were given and direction was passed for suspension of shop in question on 15.1.2016, and by same the petitioner was also asked to submit his explanation within one week alongwith evidences in support of his explanation. There appears no irregularity in this matter. 8. So far order passed by appellate Court in appeal No. -20/2016 is concerned, it is also apparently not erroneous when the evidences collected by respondent No. -3 were independently considered and it was found that finding of respondent No. -3 regarding irregularities committed by petitioner are found incorrect. On the basis of collected evidences, concurrent finding of fact has been given regarding prima facie proof of irregularities and suspension order in question was confirmed. This Court is not expected to interfere in such concurrent findings of fact, which are not perverse and are apparently acceptable without any infirmity. 9. So far submission of counsel for the petitioner regarding non-consideration of explanation etc. and non-asking of stock register etc. before passing of order of suspension dated 15.1.2016 is concerned, it is also not acceptable. It was a routine preliminary enquiry in which on the basis of adduced evidences, certain irregularities were found. 9. So far submission of counsel for the petitioner regarding non-consideration of explanation etc. and non-asking of stock register etc. before passing of order of suspension dated 15.1.2016 is concerned, it is also not acceptable. It was a routine preliminary enquiry in which on the basis of adduced evidences, certain irregularities were found. After such preliminary enquiry, in discharge of his duty, the respondent No. -3 was obliged to pass appropriate order, which has been passed by him on 15.1.2016 by suspending the agreement of fair price shop and informing the petitioner to submit explanation of his charges. It is observed that during such proposed enquiry, it is incumbent upon the respondents to furnish copies of all records, which are proposed to be adduced in evidence in enquiry. After the submission of formal explanation of the charges, which would be considered and, it is expected that appropriate order would be passed. 10. At this stage, on the basis of above discussion, this Court finds no sufficient reason to interfere in impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed.