Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) A complaint dated 4.1.2016 was filed on Tehsil Day by one Abid Khan. On said complaint, matter was enquired, during which statement of card holders were recorded. After the enquiry, the respondent no.-2 after noting statement of card holders of fair price shop in question and recording his finding, passed order dated 15.1.2016 for suspension of said fair price shop. Against said order dated 15.1.2016, the petitioner had preferred appeal no.-20/2016 (Kamruddin Khan v. State of U.P. ), which was dismissed by the judgment dated 12.5.2016 of respondent no.-2, Deputy Commissioner (Foods), Bareilly Division, Bareilly. Against these orders dated 15.1.2016 and 12.5.2016, present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during enquiry, he was not furnished with copy of enquiry report, the explanation given by him was not properly considered, the affidavit of witnesses submitted by petitioner were not considered and even stock register was not asked from him and impugned order of suspension was passed. Therefore, said order is erroneous. His further submission is that these facts were not considered by respondent no.-2, who had also passed erroneous order dated 12.5.2016 in appeal, so these orders should be quashed.
(3.) In reply, standing counsel submitted that the petitioner is not a Government employee to seek opportunity of hearing in departmental enquiry. His status is that of a person, who has been given permission to run a fair price shop on contract, for convenience of public. He further submitted that impugned order was passed after preliminary enquiry on complaint, and after considering explanation and evidences available by respondent no. 3, when he had reached to conclusion that in preliminary enquiry, petitioner was found guilty of irregularities. His further submission is that if any further evidence was to be given by petitioner during preliminary enquiry, then he had opportunity for the same during appeal, which was not afforded by him. He further submitted that during enquiry, it is incumbent upon the agent of fair price shop to produce documents and concerned registers regarding allegations made against him. His further submission is that impugned order is only that of suspension and not for cancellation of shop. In these proceedings, final enquiry is proposed, where petitioner would be afforded opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.;