Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2191 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State Of U. P.

2019-09-19

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT: Siddhartha Varma, J. Upon a complaint being made by one Sunil Kumar Maurya on the telephone that the petitioner, who was a Fair Price Shop dealer, had in the month of May 2018 not distributed the essential commodities but had sold them out in the open market, an inspection was made by the Supply Inspector on 26.5.2018. Thereafter on 29.5.2018, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and a suspension order. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 11.6.2018. However, when the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansdeeh, District Ballia on 18.8.2018 cancelled the licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 12.12.2018, the instant writ petition was filed. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show-cause notice which was served on the petitioner along with the suspension order did not contain any specific charge. Even though the body of the order indicated that the stock of the petitioner which had to contain 127 bags of wheat and 87 bags of rice, had only 46 bags of wheat and 73 bags of rice but no definite charge was framed. Learned counsel submitted that after the narration of these facts an effort was there to formulate a charge which stated that in the stock of the petitioner 81 bags of wheat were found to be missing. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the charge appeared to be only with regard to the 81 missing bags of wheat. Learned counsel further submits that despite just one charge, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 11.6.2018 by which he had stated that in fact there was no bag which was missing from his shop and in fact when the stock of the petitioner's shop was handed over to the shop to which his shop was attached then there was not even a single bag of either wheat or rice which was found to be missing. However, when the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was passed on 18.8.2018, which ran into nine pages, strangely enough many other charges were looked into including the charge that the card-holders were aggrieved by the distribution which was being made by the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the inquiry itself was vitiated on account of the fact that the charges were vague. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the inquiry itself was vitiated on account of the fact that the charges were vague. He, therefore, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 515 and in Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 105 wherein it had been held that the charge sheet should be very clear with regard to the charges to which a delinquent was required to give a reply. Since learned counsel read-out a certain portion of paragraph 21 of Gorkha Security Services (supra), the same is being reproduced hereasunder: ".............. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. ..........." 3. The contention, therefore, of the petitioner was that when the charge was just with regard to the 81 missing bags of wheat then no further charge could have been dealt with while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the Appellate Authority did not address to the submissions made by the petitioner and, therefore, he prays that the orders impugned be set-aside. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, however, stated that the charges were so serious that the licence of the petitioner's shop had to be cancelled. He further submits that if the suspension order was perused, it became clear that there were many other charges other than the ones which were enumerated in the order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that the charges should be very clear. If the charges are vague then the inquiry itself becomes vitiated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that the charges should be very clear. If the charges are vague then the inquiry itself becomes vitiated. Charges should not only make the noticee clear about the reply which he has to give but the noticee should also be absolutely clear as to what would be the result of the inquiry if it went against him. In the instant case, if the suspension/show-cause notice dated 29.5.2018 is perused, it appears that even though stock of both rice and wheat were found to be short, the show-cause notice was only with regard to the missing 81 bags of wheat. Further if the impugned order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is perused, it becomes still further clear that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not confined to the charge which was imposed against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer had travelled into various other complaints which had probably been there against the petitioner. 6. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the view that when the charge itself was just one in number and that had been replied to by the petitioner then the other charges which could have been gleaned out from the suspension order or from some other record, could not have been taken into account for terminating the licence of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is, allowed. The order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansdeeh, District Ballia and the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh are quashed. A further direction is issued to the State Government that they should advise their officers that when they issue show-cause notices then they should enumerate the charges properly. They should not be merged with the details of the complaints and the inspection report. In this regard the State Government may issue a Government Order to all the concerned officials. A copy of this order may be sent to the Secretary (Food & Civil Supplies), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow through the Registrar General of this Court.