ORDER : This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the appeal in Rc.No.K6/12/2016 dated 08.08.2017 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.No.DICS/1786/2015 dated 30.07.2016, pertaining to F.P.Shop No.24 of Eddulapalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Eddulapalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by the 3rd respondent by way of notification. Since the date of appointment, she used to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization by proceedings dated 19.08.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1367 of 2015 questioning the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization and this Court by order dated 05.02.2015 suspended the same. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.1367 of 2015, the petitioner was supplied the essential commodities to distribute the same to the card holders, pending writ petition. Again, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization on 30.07.2016 and also issued show-cause notice as to why the petitioner’s authorization should not be cancelled. On considering the explanation of the petitioner, the authorization was cancelled on 30.07.2016, as per the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 06.01.2016 passed in appeal preferred against the suspension order dated 20.11.2015. Against which, the appeal in Rc.No.K6/12/2016 was preferred to the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent failed to pass any orders on stay petition and in appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8799 of 2017 and the same was disposed of on 15.03.2017 directing the appellate authority - Joint Collector, Anantapur to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 08.08.2017. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 08.08.2017. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that neither the 2nd respondent - appellate authority nor the 3rd respondent - disciplinary authority has considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 27.06.2015 to the show-cause notice dated 17.06.2015 and passed the impugned cancellation order. The impugned cancellation order was passed based on the report dated 17.06.2015 submitted by the 4th respondent - Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal stating that on a complaint received from the card holders, he enquired into the matter in detail and submitted a report. Based on the said report, show-cause notice dated 17.06.2015 was issued. Neither the 4th respondent nor his subordinates had inspected the petitioner’s shop and verified the record and no panachanama was conducted. But, the respondent-authorities are bent upon to cancel the petitioner’s authorization by hook or crook to accommodate the chosen men of the local politicians. The 2nd respondent - appellate authority also has not considered the grounds of appeal in its proper perspective objectively and mechanically confirmed the cancellation order, which is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2008’). He further contended that the disciplinary authority had not conducted any enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Clause 5 of the Control Order, 2008 as held by this Court in B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(3) ALD 617 . 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the contents of the counter, would contend that the 3rd respondent based on the report dated 17.06.2015 of the 4th respondent, a show-cause notice dated 17.06.2015 was issued and the petitioner submitted her explanation on 27.06.2015. After giving opportunity to the petitioner and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent - disciplinary authority cancelled the petitioner’s authorization as per the provisions of Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, 2008 and against which, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector. After giving opportunity to the petitioner and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent - disciplinary authority cancelled the petitioner’s authorization as per the provisions of Clause 5(5) of the Control Order, 2008 and against which, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the 2nd respondent - Joint Collector. The 2nd respondent, as directed by this Court on 15.03.2017, has considered the appeal as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2008 and dismissed the appeal confirming the cancellation order dated 30.07.2016 vide proceedings dated 08.08.2017 by holding that Charge No.5 was proved and the remaining charges were minor charges. The impugned order would not suffer from any infirmity much less legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the 3rd respondent - disciplinary authority based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent on 17.06.2015, a show-cause notice dated 17.06.2015 was issued to the petitioner, framing the following charges: “Charge No.1: The F.P.Shop dealer has not maintained the sales and stock registers properly and the stock register is not tallied with sales register. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.22(viii) of APSPDS Control Order. Charge No.2: The F.P.Shop dealer has not exhibited the stock-cum-price list board in the FP Shop premises. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.22(v) of APSPDS Control Order. Charge No.3: The F.P.Shop dealer is issuing PDS rice with iron vessel (Seru) for the long time. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.17(i) of APSPDS Control Order. Charge No.4: The F.P.Shop dealer was not maintaining timings prescribed by the Government and not opened for specified days i.e. upto 15th of every month. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.22(vi) of APSPDS Control Order. Charge No.5: At the time of enquiry as per book balance and ground balance there is shortage of 1.60 Qtls of PDS rice in the FP Shop premises. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.17(b)(c) of APSPDS Control Order.” Then, the petitioner has submitted explanation denying the charges. 6. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.22(vi) of APSPDS Control Order. Charge No.5: At the time of enquiry as per book balance and ground balance there is shortage of 1.60 Qtls of PDS rice in the FP Shop premises. Thereby the F.P.shop dealer violated Cl.17(b)(c) of APSPDS Control Order.” Then, the petitioner has submitted explanation denying the charges. 6. However, a perusal of the suspension order passed by the 3rd respondent reveals that he has extracted the charges and the explanations and has given charge-wise findings by holding that the charges 1 to 4 were minor in nature as per Clause 24 of the Control Order, 2008 and the Charge No.5 was grave in nature. Hence, this Court found it useful to extract the finding of the Charge No.5 thus: “.... As such the FP Shop dealer distributed 39.40 Qtls & AAY rice. As per clause 24 (i) of APSPDS control order 2008, minor variation in respect of single commodity upto 1.5% may be allowed taking into consideration of transaction of one month. As per said clause 59 Kgs of rice is allowed as permissible variation, still 101 Kgs of PDS rice is shortage in the FP Shop. Totally 160 Kgs of PDS & AAY rice is diverted into black market for her pecuniary gains. The FP Shop dealer himself given written statement before the MRI, Pamidi stating that there is 8.80 Qtls of PDS & AAY rice on ground balance in the FP Shop at the time of inspection and shortage of 1.60 Qtls of rice. The charge No.5 framed against the FP Shop dealer is grave in nature and explanation of the FP Shop dealer is not taken into consideration. The charge is proved.” Accordingly, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended. The same was confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 08.08.2017. 7. But, a perusal of the cancellation order, the order of the appellate authority and the counter filed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu reveal that no inspection was conducted in respect of petitioner’s shop and that date and time were also not mentioned. However, based on the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent got issued the show-cause notice and the petitioner has submitted explanation by taking specific stand that no enquiry was made. Based on the report, a show-cause notice was issued for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. 8. However, based on the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent got issued the show-cause notice and the petitioner has submitted explanation by taking specific stand that no enquiry was made. Based on the report, a show-cause notice was issued for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. 8. The petitioner’s authorization was cancelled contrary to the provisions of Clause 5 of the Control Order, 2008. The disciplinary authority has to conduct enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner before holding that the charges were proved. However, the cancellation order reveals that only show-cause notice was issued framing five charges and considered the explanation of the petitioner. But no enquiry was conducted with reference to the records and the contents of the report submitted by the 4th respondent behind back of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority is under statutory obligation to conduct enquiry as per the provisions of Clause 5 of the Control Order, 2008, as held by this Court in B.Manjula’s case (1 supra) and mere consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on his own way with reference to the records is not sufficient. However, this Court found that cancellation of petitioner’s authorization on the ground that charge No.5 was proved, which is grave in nature, could not find merit consideration as per Clause 24 of the Control Order, 2008 as the maximum variation 1.5% is allowed for single commodity for one month sales transactions. The F.P.Shop dealer has distributed 39.40 Qtls and the marginal permissible variation is 59 Kgs. and still 101 Kgs. of rice was shortage. But, the same is not proved with reference to any evidence. The appellate authority has also not considered the same and dismissed the appeal mechanically confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 9. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent. The respondent-authorities are directed to restore the petitioner’s authorization. However, liberty is given to the respondent-authorities, if so advised, to conduct fresh enquiry as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2008 and the law laid down by this Court in the cases of 1) B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (1 supra), 2) Pidikiti Sailaja Vs. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and 3) C.Durga Srinivasa Rao and others Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others (1 supra), 2) Pidikiti Sailaja Vs. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and 3) C.Durga Srinivasa Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015(6) ALD 359 . No order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.