ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The instant petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings in Ref. No. 1(4)/1477/2019 dated 25.12.2019 passed by respondent No. 3 suspending the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No. 1115132 of pending disciplinary proceedings. 2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. As can be seen from the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 in view of the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Proddatur dated 3.12.2019 the allegations that: (1) The petitioner is not exhibited the stock-cum-price notice in the premises of the Fair Price Shop. (2) Distributing Essential Commodities through manual weighing machines (Takkeda) instead of electronic weighing machines. (3) Abusing the cardholders using unparliamentarily words. (4) Not remitting the DDs within the scheduled time, has held that the petitioner prima facie committed contravention of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,.2018 (for short, "Control Order, 2018") and thus suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. 4. Learned Counsel would vehemently argue that the alleged contraventions are politically motivated and created to see that the petitioner's authorization is somehow cancelled and petitioner never committed any contraventions as alleged. It is further argue that no show-cause notice was issued calling for the explanation of the petitioner before suspending her authorization and hence the impugned order is devoid of principles of natural justice. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 5. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader contended that the villagers of Proddatur gave complaints against the petitioner alleging that she was not opening the shop regularly and she was delivering the commodities with less weight or using manual weighing machines instead of electronic weighing machines and when questioned, she was abusing the cardholders. He would argue that during the course of inspection also some of the cardholders gave statement. He produced the copy of the complaint dated 20.8.2019 said to be signed by the villagers and he also produced the statement of one of the cardholders. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is factually and legally sustainable? 7. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is factually and legally sustainable? 7. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 reads thus: "The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo-motu or on receipt of complaint; after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause." Thus, it is clear that the appointing authority at any time in the public interest or suo-motu or on receipt of complaint can either suspend or cancel the authorization of a dealer after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary. Issuing show-cause notice prior to suspension is not mandatory. However after suspension, the authority shall issue show-cause notice call for explanation and then conduct a regular enquiry in order to establish guilt of the dealer. But prior show-cause notice for suspension is not essential. In G. Durga Srinivasa Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,: 2015 (6) ALD 359 . This aspect has been discussed at length in the form of guidelines: 26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly Clauses 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. "(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry and no show-cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show-cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order. (v) While issuing the show-cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular Court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order. (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal. (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorization and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning.". Therefore, the petitioner cannot harp that the suspension is bad at law for non-issuance of prior show-cause notice. 8. Then, the next important aspect is that though the prior show-cause notice is not mandatory, suspension shall not be made as a matter of course but the authority shall apply its mind in respect of the irregularities alleged against the dealer and form an opinion as to whether placing the dealer under suspension is imperative and whether such suspension will help to conduct the disciplinary enquiry in a fair manner so as to prevent the errant dealer from meddling with the enquiry and tampering the evidence of the complaint. The authorities shall also consider that if the dealer is permitted to continue his dealership pending enquiry whether there is any. possibility of his continuing his misdeeds such as black-marketing the essential commodities, not properly distributing the commodities to the cardholders and thereby causing inconvenience to them etc. If the authorities apprehend that the dealer may indulge in such activities, then by giving cogent reasons it may place the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. possibility of his continuing his misdeeds such as black-marketing the essential commodities, not properly distributing the commodities to the cardholders and thereby causing inconvenience to them etc. If the authorities apprehend that the dealer may indulge in such activities, then by giving cogent reasons it may place the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, running the risk of repetition, it must be emphasized, though under Rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 the appointing authority has power to suspend the authorization of a dealer pending disciplinary enquiry, however such power shall be exercised with utmost care and circumspection. 9. Since the appointing authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority, he must give cogent reasons specifying the need for placing the dealer under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry. The mere cryptic order that the report of the inspecting authority reveals a prima facie case against the petitioner of his committing certain irregularities and thereby violating the Control Order, 2018 is not sufficient to justify suspension. The suspension order shall not just signify the subjective satisfaction of the Officer but it should demonstrate compulsive need for suspension. It should be noted that not all follies of a dealer, invariably require his suspension pending enquiry. Therefore, appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry. 10. When tested on the above touch stone, in this case the veracity of all the allegations can be decided only after a regular enquiry, since the allegations are that the petitioner was using manual weighing machine instead of electronic machine and was giving lesser weights to the cardholders and when questioned she was abusing them. These allegations, as stated supra have to be established in a regular enquiry. Therefore, in my considered view, suspension is not panacea for ensuring fair enquiry. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the suspension order in Ref. No. 1(4)/1477/2019 dated 25.12.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 is directed to receive the written explanation of the petitioner and conduct due enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules. Till such enquiry is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Fair Price Shop No. 1115132 at Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. No costs. 12. The respondent No. 3 is directed to receive the written explanation of the petitioner and conduct due enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules. Till such enquiry is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the Fair Price Shop No. 1115132 at Gopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. No costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.