Pirozhkov, being the director of the shop "Products"

Pirozhkov, being the director of the shop "Products" was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 14.8 Administrative Code. The head of the State Transport Inspection issued a decision on the appointment of an administrative fine in the amount of 10 minimum wages.
In the complaint filed to the justice of the peace, Pirozhkov indicated that in bringing him to administrative responsibility, the established procedure was violated. In particular, the protocol on administrative offense was drawn up by the district police authorized, and not by the state inspectorate official, the offense was detected on March 5, and the protocol was drawn up on March 10, the protocol did not indicate what exactly the offense was expressed, and his patronymic was incorrectly stated (“ Vladmimirovich "instead of" Vyacheslavovich "). In addition, the case was considered by the head of the State Transport Inspection after 25 days from the receipt of all case materials, while the determination to extend the time for consideration of the case was not made by an official, which entails the invalidity of the decision.
In court, a representative of the State Inspection explained that Pirozhkov’s guilt was fully confirmed by all the materials of the case, his identity was established during the hearing of the case, the postponement of the consideration of the case was caused by the need to call witnesses. As for the timing of the protocol, it would have been drawn up after an administrative investigation into the case had been carried out.
Resolve the case on the merits, give a legal assessment of all the procedural actions of the participants. Have the competent authorities (officials) drafted a protocol, issued a ruling, considered a complaint? Can the procedural violations allowed serve as grounds for annulment? What is the decision to make the magistrate?