SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) After the First Information Report was lodged on 22.9.2017 by the District Supply Officer against the petitioner, on 23.9.2017, on the very same grounds on which the F.I.R. was lodged the impugned order of suspension was passed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a perusal of the impugned order indicates that while the licence to run the fair price shop had been suspended there was no enquiry contemplated. Only in note 4 of the impugned suspension order by which the main order was forwarded to various individuals, it has been stated that regarding the irregularities which had been given out in the suspension order the petitioner had to submit his written reply, along with such evidence as he wished to rely on, to the District Supply Officer. He contends that this order had been passed by way of a punishment as, after the suspension, the order does not disclose if there was any disciplinary enquiry contemplated. Note 4 of the impugned order makes available a copy of the impugned order to the petitioner and also extends him an opportunity to show cause but no charge has been framed and it does not indicate as to what punishment would be there if the enquiry, if at all was undertaken, went against the petitioner. Under such circumstances he submits that the suspension order itself is a final order as no enquiry in fact is pending.
(3.) He further submitted that in AIR 1972 SC 554(P.R. Nayak v. Union of India) , and in Smt. Anshu Bharti v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (9) ADJ 355 , it has been laid down that if in a suspension order no enquiry is contemplated then the suspension order itself becomes a final order of punishment, which could not be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Still further, learned counsel has stated that if an order suspending the licence of the petitioner is passed on the basis of an F.I.R. under section 37 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, then the order gets vitiated in law. He placed reliance on Rajkumari Singh (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2011 ALL.C.J. 838.;