R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.1997 (Annexure -10) by which a decision of the Management for removing him from services was communicated, and for directing the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Clerk from 1985 but only due to some mistake in a bill the Management has dispensed with his services. Moreover, his prayer for engaging a lawyer before the Enquiry Committee, (which consisted of two advocates) was refused; and that he was not given the enquiry report; and that in any event the punishment is harsh. Petitioner 'scounsel relies on the judgments reported in 2002 (1) JCR 139 (Jhr), Dr. Kailash Vihari V/s. Birla Institute of Technology, 1996 1 PLJR 435, Dr. Vidyapati Prasad Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. and - - - - , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. V/s. B. Karunakar and Ors.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Management, it was not a case of mistake but a case of deliberate mischief for wrongful gain by manipulation. The petitioner took part in the enquiry proceedings, after his prayer for engaging a lawyer was refused and after the order is passed against him, he is raising this grievance. Moreover, non -supply of enquiry report has not prejudiced the petitioner. The Management relying on 2003 1 JCR 51 (Jhr). Pankaj Kumar Srivastava V/s. Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank, AIR 1999 SC 625, Apparel Export Promotion Council V/s. A.K. Chopra and on paragraph 30(v) of the judgment reported in the case of Managing Director, ECIL (supra), further submitted that this Court may not interfere in this case, as keeping a person with such culpable mind will adversely effect the management,;