JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.12.2012 as well as order dated 28.01.2014, whereby the fair price shop licence has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a licencee of fair price shop for gram panchayat Banwa, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki since a very long time and has been performing the work of distribution of essential commodities without any complaint. Due to political rivalry, as the petitioner's cousin had fought an election against the sitting Pradhan, the sitting Pradhan had refused to sign the distribution statement and the order has been passed by Deputy District Supply Officer, Nawabganj, Barabanki to get it verified by Lekhpal or Panchayat Sewak. Due to this the sitting Pradhan had got annoyed with the petitioner and had made false complaint against the petitioner on the basis of which vide order dated 17.10.2012 licence of petitioner was suspended and the enquiry was initiated. In this regard a charge-sheet dated 18.9.2012 was issued to the petitioner, to which he had submitted his reply dated 17.10.2012 denying the said charges, however, the opposite party no.3/Deputy District Officer, Nawabganj, District Barabanki in most arbitrary and illegal manner has cancelled the fair price shop licence of the petitioner by passing the impugned order. In the appeal preferred against the said order although the appellate authority has come to conclusion that the charge nos.1 and 2 cannot be proved against the petitioner, however, merely on presumptions that charge no.3 having been proved in the enquiry, has rejected the appeal. 4. Submission is that in the enquiry the charge no.3 has not been proved by the enquiry officer and merely on presumptions and surmises the enquiry officer has come to conclusion that since the petitioner has not submitted any reply relating to the charge no.3, as such, charge no.3 has been admitted by him. In this regard the appellate authority has agreed with the findings of enquiry officer on the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to produce the distribution register relating to the kerosene oil. 5. It is submitted that it is well settled in law that mere on the basis of allegations the charge cannot be presumed to be proved. In this regard the appellate authority has agreed with the findings of enquiry officer on the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to produce the distribution register relating to the kerosene oil. 5. It is submitted that it is well settled in law that mere on the basis of allegations the charge cannot be presumed to be proved. Even if delinquent has not submitted his reply, it cannot be presumed that the said charge has been proved. It is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to prove the charges on the basis of documents on record and adducing evidence. The impugned order of cancellation dated 18.9.2012 has been passed merely on presumptions and no concrete finding has been returned by the enquiry officer proving the charge no.3. It is submitted that the appellate authority has also proceeded on wrong premise that since the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant distribution register, as such, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is correct. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit submits that a complaint relating to improper distribution of essential commodities to the card holders was made against the petitioner. On the said complaint a preliminary enquiry was got conducted through Area Food Officer and preliminary enquiry report was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki. On the basis of preliminary enquiry report the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was suspended and the charge sheet containing three charges was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation to the charge sheet. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge sheet and thereafter the competent authority considering the material on record has come to conclusion that all three charges have been found proved against the petitioner. The petitioner has been found guilty of non-distribution of essential commodities to certain card holders and charging extra money in the distribution of kerosene oil. It is submitted that the petitioner had failed to make any submission about the statements of certain card holders where they had made allegations against the petitioner about non-distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner had also failed to make any reply to the charge no.3 which relates to charging of extra money in supply of the kerosene oil. It is submitted that the petitioner had failed to make any submission about the statements of certain card holders where they had made allegations against the petitioner about non-distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner had also failed to make any reply to the charge no.3 which relates to charging of extra money in supply of the kerosene oil. Learned Standing Counsel submits that it was for the petitioner to have proved his innocence in the enquiry which he has failed to do so and, as such, there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of cancellation of licence of fair price shop. 7. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 8. As per the admitted facts the petitioner was holding a licence for fair price shop in question and he was required to make distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of gram panchayat concerned. A complaint was made by sitting Pradhan on which a preliminary enquiry was got conducted by the Area Food Officer and on the basis of preliminary enquiry report the licence of the petitioner was suspended and a detailed enquiry was held. In the enquiry charge-sheet containing three charges was issued to the petitioner, to which he had submitted reply and thereafter the competent authority has passed the impugned order of cancellation and the appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioner has been dismissed. 9. It is to be noted that the charge sheet dated 18.9.2012 contains three charges. Charge nos.1 and 2 relate to lessor supply of essential commodities such as wheat, rice and sugar for the month of September, 2012. The charge no.3 relates to charging of Rs.35/- for 2 litres of kerosene oil from the card holders. The perusal of the impugned order of cancellation dated 11.12.2012 shows that the petitioner had in his reply annexed the affidavits of certain card holders stating therein that they were mislead and in fact they had received the full and proper supply of essential commodities and their statement, was wrongly recorded. The competent authority however has held that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation with respect to all the persons who had made complaint and given their statements against him, as such, the charge nos.1 and 2 shall stand proved against him. The competent authority however has held that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation with respect to all the persons who had made complaint and given their statements against him, as such, the charge nos.1 and 2 shall stand proved against him. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner the appellate authority has come to conclusion that in the enquiry the petitioner had submitted relevant records such as distribution register etc. and the complaint of improper supply of required quantity of essential commodities could have been easily verified from the records. The competent authority did not make any effort to get the said allegations verified from the relevant records and, as such, charge nos.1 and 2 cannot be said to be proved against the petitioner. 10. As such, so far as the charge nos.1 and 2 are concerned the appellate court has held that they have not been proved against the petitioner. 11. With respect to charge no.3 which relates to charging of Rs.35/- for two litres of kerosene oil from the card holders is concerned, the competent authority has come to conclusion that since the petitioner had not submitted any reply to charge no.3, as such, it is clear that charge no.3 is admitted to him. The appellate authority in its order dated 28.1.2014 has come to conclusion that since the petitioner/appellant had failed to produce the relevant distribution register in spite of order by the Court, as such, there appears to be no error in the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate in this regard. Suffice is to observe that in the enquiry the charges leveled against the fair price shop licencee are required to be proved on the basis of documents on record and the evidence collected in the enquiry. In case the delinquent licencee has not submitted the reply to any charge or has submitted incomplete reply to any particular charge, it cannot be presumed that charge is admitted to him and shall stands proved. 12. In the present case as per the impugned order the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the charge no.3 and, as such, the competent authority has presumed it to be admitted to the petitioner and has taken it to be proved. This Court in the case of Vishwanath Vs. 12. In the present case as per the impugned order the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the charge no.3 and, as such, the competent authority has presumed it to be admitted to the petitioner and has taken it to be proved. This Court in the case of Vishwanath Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and ohers; [ 2007 (25) LCD 1417 ] while dealing with the similar issue in para 8 of the judgment has held as under: - "8. Clause 13, therefore, has given power to the Sub-Divisional Officer but the power has to be exercised in accordance with law. A vague charge (in fact with no particulars) and an order without recording the finding on specific charges, is not within the power of Sub-Divisional Officer. A presumption has been drawn that the petitioner is avoiding an enquiry by not producing the registers is not sufficient for Sub-Divisional Officer to cancel the licence. The Sub-Divisional Officer is seized with sufficient power to make investigation of shop and find out the grave irregularities which have been alleged against thee petitioner. No such action has been taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer nor any specific incident of any grave irregularities has either been mentioned in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order nor in the appellate order. Upon going through Annexure-6 to the writ petition which is alleged to be a complaint of the villagers, it will be seen that the same is also quite vague where it has been stated that the petitioner is committing irregularities in distributing kerosene oil and ration. According to the petitioner, even the said complaint was not given to him, hence he did not have any knowledge as to what charges he has to reply to. Consequently, the reply submitted by the petitioner on 8.4.2003 was as vague as the suspension order and the order of cancellation is equally vague with no finding on any specific charges whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders cannot be sustained." 13. I am of the considered view that the enquiry officer should have proceeded on the basis of evidence on record to come to conclusion as to whether the said charge is found proved or not. It cannot be presumed that the charge is proved in case no reply has been submitted by the delinquent licencee in this regard. I am of the considered view that the enquiry officer should have proceeded on the basis of evidence on record to come to conclusion as to whether the said charge is found proved or not. It cannot be presumed that the charge is proved in case no reply has been submitted by the delinquent licencee in this regard. Moreover, it is to be observed that in case statement of any card holder is relied in the enquiry the said card holder is required to be examined in the enquiry and it cannot be presumed that the statement of card holder which was taken at the time of preliminary enquiry is correct as the said statement was taken behind the back of delinquent licencee and the said card holder has not been put to cross-examination and no opportunity was provided to the delinquent licencee in this regard. As such, the findings of the enquiry officer on the alleged charges as noted in the impugned order were totally perverse and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellate authority has also failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on presumptions. The appellate court order is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. The writ petition, as such, is allowed. The orders dated 11.12.2012 as well as order dated 28.01.2014 are hereby set aside with liberty to the concerning competent authority to hold fresh proceedings from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet dated 18.9.2012 and pass a fresh order expeditiously in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.