Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is an order dated 18th December, 1978 passed by the Director of Rationing. The said order reads as follows : "Whereas departmental proceedings have been drawn up against Sm. Puspa Rani Roy. Proprietor of A.R. Shop No 638 of Baranagar Sub-Area under this Office Memo No. 350/DR/LL dated 19.7.78 and Memo No. 736/DR/LL dated 19.12.78. Whereas in view of the charges framed against you it appears necessary in the interest of the general public to suspend your appointment pending enquiry into the proceedings Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by provision to sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 as amended by the West Bengal Rationing (Amendment) Order, 1969 which has been delegated to me under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 22 of the said order under Government Notification No. 3570 F.S. dated 31.5.69, I hereby suspend the appointment of Sm. Puspa Rani Roy as an Appointed Retailer No. 628 with immediate effect."
(2.) This order was passed under sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. The said sub paragraph reads as follows : "(5) Whenever in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the general public, the State Government may amend, vary, suspend or revoke any appointment made under this paragraph, after giving the holder of the appointment an opportunity of being heard either in person or by an agent and for reasons to be recorded in writing, and in every such case the holder of the appointment shall be bound to surrender, on demand, to the State Government, the order of the appointment for endorsement or cancellation, as the case may be." But there was an amendment of sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 and I am not concerned really with the other part of the amendment except the proviso that was added which reads as follows : "Provided that pending an enquiry into a charge against the holder of an appointment, the State Government may suspend his appointment, if in the opinion of the State Government immediate suspension is necessary in the interests of the general public."
(3.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged that the order of suspension pending, enquiry on the ground that the order had been passed without application of mind and there were no materials which necessitated the passing of such an order in the interest of general public. On behalf of the respondent explaining the circumstances under which the said order was passed, one Sri Pabitra Mohan Chakrabarty, who was the Rationing Officer, Baranagar, in his affidavit affirmed on 13th February, 1976 has stated, inter alia, as follows : "The petitioner is an appointed retailer appointed by the Director of Rationing under West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. Director of Rationing is the disciplinary authority, and he is empowered to draw proceedings and suspend functioning of the shop for the time being pending enquiry of the proceedings under the provisions of the West Bengal Rationing Order. There were number of serious irregularities found in her shop in course of different inspections made in her shop since February last. Director or Rationing after careful examination found that there were prima facie charges against the petitioner and drew up a proceeding against her. She was asked to show cause as to why suitable action should not be taken against her before the enquiring officer who was appointed by the Director of Rationing to enquire in the said proceedings. The Director of Rationing was also satisfied that the charges were of serious nature and the petitioner should not be entrusted with public distribution till the disposal of the proceedings in the interest of the general public. Accordingly he suspended the functioning of the petitioners shop for the time being which he is empowered to do under provisions of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 as amended. The appointment of the petitioner has not been revoked, functioning of the shop has been suspended for the time being. She has been given liberty to appear before the enquiry officer to defend herself. During the course of enquiry she will have all opportunities as required to defend herself. All the Ration Cards attached to her shop have been delinked and transferred to the neighbouring shops so that card holders may not have any difficulty to receive their rations as usual. The petitioner refused to receive both the proceedings and the suspension order. A copy of the suspension order was hung up in the shop in presence of witnesses. The suspension order (Annexure 'A' of the Writ Petition) will show that the proceedings was drawn up against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Rationing Order. 9. Regarding paragraph 4 of the petition I state that the Rationing Officer, Baranagar visited the said area Ration Shop of the petitioner on the occasion and other inspecting officers also visited the shop on several occasions for the purpose of routine enquiry. There were number of serious irregularities found in course of different inspections since February, 1978. After careful examination it was found that there were prima facie charges against her. Accordingly proceedings were drawn up against her and she was asked to show cause as to why suitable action should not be taken against her before the enquiry officer appointed to enquire into the said proceedings. Being satisfied with serious nature of charges against her it was decided that ration shop of the petitioner should not be entrusted with the public distribution system till the disposal of the proceedings in the interest of the general public and the shop had to be suspended for the time being in accordance with the provision 3(5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1955 (as subsequently amended). I deny that any vindictive attitude has been taken against the petitioner as alleged therein. I state that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was carefully examined and ultimately it was rejected under the Memo No. 350/DR/LL dated 19.7.78. Decision of the authority regarding other charges for her explanation could not be served upon the petitioner due to the reluctance and refusal at her end. I further state that the order or suspension under Memo No. 738/DR/LL dated 19.12.78 was affixed in a conspicuous place of the said shop wall as she refused to accept service of the same. Each and every other allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the petition is denied and disputed ";