Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Ramachandra Reddy vs The Union Of India And Others on 27 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1993AP19, AIR 1993 ANDHRA PRADESH 19, 1993 (2) LJR 129 (1993) CIVILCOURTC 324, (1993) CIVILCOURTC 324
ORDER
1. The complaint of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that even though he has filed the reply on 19-2-1992 to the Notice dated 11-2-1992 ssued by the third respondent herein, no enquiry has been conducted and as matter of course and in routine fashion the impugned order dated 20-2-1992 was passed, that too by the third respondent herein".
2. Mr. J. V. Lakshmana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inasmuch as the allegations mentioned in the Notice dated 11-2-1992 were refuted by the petitioner, it was, incumbent upon the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and failure to do so has resulted in infraction of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner is condemned without being heard.
3. Mr. K. Rajanna, the Additional Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that inasmuch as in the notice dated 11-2-1992 it is also recited that there is evidence on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner, it should be presumed that the enquiry was conducted and that there was material to base the allegations against the petitioner. 1 cannot countenance this argument of Mr. K. Rajanna and the approach of the respondents. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is a very serious one that he in collusion with the departmental officials has made use of free calls and if that is established, it is needless to mention, that the petitioner's telephone is liable to be disconnected and such practice of availing free calls in collusion with the departmental officials should be deprecated. But before punishing the petitioner for the alleged misuse of the telephone, he shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity akin to that of a trial in a Court of law. As and when arbitration is conducted under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the civil courts jurisdiction is barred, and this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the disputed questions of fact and cannot act as a fact finding authority.
4. The procedure to be adopted in an enquiry under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act shall be that of a trial of suit in a Civil Court of Law, adduction of evidence by the department, then opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner and thereafter opportunity of adducing rebuttal evidence by the petitioner, participation in the enquiry by the petitioner and if he so chooses, to be represented by a legal practioner and a fair hearing and a well reasoned order. This procedure shall be adopted by the arbitrator who conducts enquiry under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. I hereby direct the second respondent herein to initiate arbitration proceedings concerning the instant dispute, as contemplated under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the arbitrator so appointed shall follow the procedure indicated above and dispose of the same within six months from the date of his appointment as arbitrator. The second respondent shall take steps for initiation of arbitration proceedings within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The third respondent shall forthwith reconnect the Telephone No. 664021 to the petitioner without collecting any reconnection charges. The impugned order is set aside.
5. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
6. Order accordingly.