ORDER 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. 3. 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. Petitioners counsel relies on the judgments reported in 2002 (1) JCR 139 (Jhr), Dr. Kailash Vihari v. Birla Institute of Technology, 1996 (1) PLJR 435 , Dr. Vidyapati Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. and , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. 4. 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. Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank, AIR 1999 SC 625 , Apparel Export Promotion Council v. 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, 5. I find force in the submissions of the Management. Against a supporting voucher of Rs. 175/-, the petitioner claimed Rs. 200/-. However, the bill was corrected and handed over to him by the accounts department. Then, he enhanced the amount in the bill and in voucher by manipulation and got it approved. This was detected in audit. Petitioner deposited the enhanced amount and admitting his guilt, requested for pardon. A charge-sheet (An-nexure-3) was served alleging major misconduct. Petitioner filed its show cause. He prayed for engaging a lawyer on the ground that the enquiry officers are lawyers. This was detected in audit. Petitioner deposited the enhanced amount and admitting his guilt, requested for pardon. A charge-sheet (An-nexure-3) was served alleging major misconduct. Petitioner filed its show cause. He prayed for engaging a lawyer on the ground that the enquiry officers are lawyers. Management declined such request made on the said ground, saying that management has also not engaged any lawyer to represent it before the enquiry officers. Petitioner then took part in the proceeding. The report of enquiry committee was accepted. Consequently the management decided to take action. A show cause notice along with the enquiry report was served. Petitioner filed its reply. Ultimately, with effect from 22.2.1997, the management dispensed with his services, instead of dismissing him, in view of the proved serious nature of misconduct. 6. In the case of Dr. Kailash Vihari, (supra), this Court was approached at the stage of suspension but in this case, the petitioner took part in the enquiry. Therefore, after the final order has been passed against him, his grievance that he was not allowed to engage a lawyer, cannot be accepted. Further, in my opinion, non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner, before it was considered by the disciplinary authority, has not caused prejudice to him. The manipulation was apparent from the bill and the voucher. Petitioner admitted his guilt and prayed for pardon. In view, the principles laid down in Paragraph 30(v) of the judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, (supra), the punishment is not vitiated, on account of violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, petitioner could not show that the findings of fact recorded in the enquiry are perverse. In such a situation, in view of the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 625 , Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, no interference is called for in this case. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.