Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) On 12.05.2016, the District Supply Officer took cognizance of a complaint given by one Dharmendra Kumar dated 11.05.2016. On 18.05.2016, the Supply Inspector entered into a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report that the licence of the petitioner to run the fair price shop be suspended. On the very same day the District Supply Officer suspended the licence of the petitioner. On 28.05.2016, a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied on 17.06.2016. Thereafter, the order dated 08.08.2016 was passed. The Appellate Court on 13.12.2016 affirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 08.08.2016.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the order dated 08.08.2016 is perused then it becomes abundantly clear that the enquiry was not conducted by the Enquiry Officer, but it was infact handed over to the Supply Inspector and on the comments given by the Supply Inspector, the licence to run the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled. If a proper enquiry had taken place only then a proper conclusion could have been drawn by the enquiry officer regarding the charges against the petitioner and since, the Enquiry Officer had only depended on the comments of the Supply Inspector, the Enquiry was absolutely vitiated in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that neither a place nor a date was fixed. No time for the enquiry was also fixed. Had a time, place and date been fixed the petitioner would have cross-examined the witnesses who had deposed against her. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the premises from which the petitioner was distributing the essential commodities was changed by her on account of the fact that the premises had fallen down because of inclement weather then the petitioner ought to have been excused for doing that. In fact no punishment should have been given to her.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for not informing the authorities about the change of the business premises the punishment ought not to have been as grave as had been awarded.;