Removal of a fair-price-shop salesperson requires a prior hearing and order by the competent allotment authority.

The petitioners were salespersons of fair price shops under the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System.

In W.P. No. 547/2016, the Collector, by order dated 15 December 2015, directed the concerned society to remove the petitioner from the post of salesperson of the fair price shop at Nakjhar Khurd, Tehsil Deori, District Sidhi.

The action was based on an allegation that the shop remained closed despite the Collector’s direction to keep it open during “Anna Utsav”.

The petitioners challenged the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that removal could be ordered only by the competent authority under the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (“PDS Order, 2015”), and only after issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing.

With the parties’ consent, the reply in W.P. Nos. 547/2016 and 6675/2016 was treated as the reply in the remaining connected petitions; all petitions were decided by a common order.

1. Whether the Collector had jurisdiction under the PDS Order, 2015 to direct removal of a fair-price-shop salesperson, when the competent authority for non-urban areas was the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).

2. Whether the removal order could be passed without conducting an enquiry, issuing a show-cause notice, and affording the concerned salesperson an opportunity of hearing.

3. Whether the impugned orders could be sustained merely because they were passed by a higher authority or were allegedly based on admitted facts.

Clause 2(j) identifies the Fair Price Shop Allotment Authority; for non-urban areas, the competent authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) of the concerned subdivision.

Clause 16(7) authorises that competent authority to direct the institution, in writing, to remove a salesperson only if the salesperson is found guilty of duties relating to distribution under the Public Distribution System.

The provision necessarily requires a determination of guilt after observance of natural justice, including notice, opportunity to submit a reply, and an enquiry where disputed allegations are involved.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Raj Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and connected matters, which held that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to order removal of a salesperson and that an order passed without an opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice.

The Court found that the impugned order was passed without any enquiry or opportunity of hearing.

The allegation that the shop remained closed during Anna Utsav was not self-proving; it had to be established by issuing a show-cause notice, considering the petitioner’s response, and recording a finding of guilt as required by Clause 16(7).

Further, because the shop was situated in a non-urban area, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), rather than the Collector, was the competent authority under Clause 2(j).

The State’s submission that the Collector could exercise the power merely because he was a higher authority was rejected: jurisdiction under the PDS Order was specifically allocated, and the Collector functioned as an appellate authority rather than as the original removal authority.

Consequently, the order suffered from both lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.

It held that the Collector was not the competent authority to order removal under the PDS Order, 2015 and that removal without notice, hearing, and a finding of guilt was legally unsustainable.

The authorities were left free to take fresh action against the petitioners in accordance with law.