JUDGMENT : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. Under the impugned order vide Ref.No.1(4)/1221/2019 dated 03.11.2019, the 3rd respondent having regard to the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Kadapa Mandal dated 22.10.2019, suspended the authorization of dealership of the petitioner's fair price shop No.1124007 at Yerraguntla Town and Mandal pending finalization of disciplinary case as per Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short "Control Order, 2018") and the said order is being impugned in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Delhi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the respondents. 3. Fulcrum of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 18.10.2019, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar and the 5th respondent have inspected the petitioner's fair price shop in Yerraguntla Town and they could not find any variations in the stock with reference to records maintained by the petitioner. However, the petitioner later came to know that on 22.10.2019, the 5th respondent submitted a false report to 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in distributing essential commodities to the cardholders viz., distributing the ECs with less quantity and collecting higher rates, keeping weighing stones in the fair price shop, distributing the ECs only 11 days, not mentioning the stock position in the stock-cum-price list board, failed to produce legal metrology certificate, not issuing receipts and pasted tape to the e-Pos device. The 5th respondent thus, recommended for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent said to have examined the report and having found prima facie contravention of Control Order, 2018, placed the authorization of petitioner's fair price shop under suspension pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings with immediate effect vide his order dated 03.11.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that allegations in the report submitted by 5th respondent are false to the core inasmuch as the petitioner has been distributing the commodities to the cardholders without any shred of mistake since last 40 years, but false allegations are made against him due to political reasons. In fact, the petitioner has produced authorization copy of fair price shop and Legal Metrology Certificate issued by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Kadapa dated 23.10.2019 before the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoti. In fact, the petitioner has produced authorization copy of fair price shop and Legal Metrology Certificate issued by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Kadapa dated 23.10.2019 before the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoti. Further, he has been maintaining stock-cum-price board and distributing essential commodities to the cardholders in a transparent manner and there were no complaints from any of the cardholders. However, without verifying the documents produced by the petitioner, the 5th respondent submitted report dated 22.10.2019 for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Hence, the 3rd respondent ought not to have treated the said report as a basis to suspend the petitioner's authorization. 5. Per contra, while supporting the impugned order, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would argue that the inspection was conducted by 5th respondent on 18.10.2019 and found certain irregularities in distributing ECs to the cardholders, as the petitioner was distributing the ECs with less quantity and collecting higher rates from the cardholders, keeping weighing stones in the fair price shop and not mentioning the stock position in the stock-cum-price list board and further, he failed to produce Legal Metrology Certificate and pasted tape to the e-Pos device. He would vehemently argue that it is preposterous on the part of the petitioner to contend that he submitted Legal Metrology Certificate dated 23.10.2019 before the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoti. He would argue that when the inspection was held on 18.10.2019 the question of petitioner producing Legal Metrology Certificate dated 23.10.2019 does not arise. He argued that as the allegations against the petitioner are grave, the 3rd respondent has rightly placed him under suspension while ordering for disciplinary proceedings and thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. I find prima facie force in the submission of learned Government Pleader. The petitioner produced the copy of the Certificate issued by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Kadapa along with the material documents. The said certificate is dated 23.10.2019. As rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader when the inspection was held on 18.10.2019, producing Legal Metrology Certificate dated 23.10.2019 before the inspection authority does not arise. So far as other allegations are concerned, they are prima facie grave ones. In these circumstances, the petitioner shall face the disciplinary enquiry and establish his defence before 3rd respondent. 7. As rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader when the inspection was held on 18.10.2019, producing Legal Metrology Certificate dated 23.10.2019 before the inspection authority does not arise. So far as other allegations are concerned, they are prima facie grave ones. In these circumstances, the petitioner shall face the disciplinary enquiry and establish his defence before 3rd respondent. 7. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed directing the petitioner to submit his written explanation and face disciplinary enquiry before the 3rd respondent to vindicate his defence. The 3rd respondent is directed to follow due process of law and complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.