B.Subhashan Reddy - (1.) The complaint of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that even though he has filed the reply on 16-2-1992 to the Notice dated 10-2-1992 issued by the third respondent herein, no enquiry has been conducted and as a matter of course and in routine fashion the impugned order dated 21-2-1992 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 10-2-1992 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 the natural justice and the petitioner is condemned without being heard.
(3.) Mr.K.Rajanna, the Addtional Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that inasmuch as in the notice dated 10-2-1992 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. I 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 misv use 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 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.;