U.K.PANDEY Vs. BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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,