“6. Gone through the joint enquiry report as at Annexure-D/5 to the counter affidavit. It is made to suggest that such an enquiry was held and finally, the report i.e. Annexure-D/5 was received by opposite party No.2. Whether, opposite party No.6 did ignore the relevant documents, such as, Annexures-9 to 15 to the rejoinder affidavit and if at all, there was any bias and malafide vis-à-vis the petitioner, merely by referring to Annexure-D/5, it is not prima facie established. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the rejoinder affidavit and pleads that number of witnesses, who were required to be examined by opposite party No.6 during and in course of the joint enquiry report, was not held, hence, the prejudice is clear and apparent and malafide on the part of opposite party No.6. But, the Court is of the view that the joint enquiry report i.e. Annexure-D/5 is yet to be accepted by opposite party No.2. If at all there is any prejudice caused to the petitioner during enquiry by the joint team, the same shall be examined by opposite party No.2 at the end. In other words, the Court is of the view that any such bias or mala fide from the side of opposite party No.6, a party to the joint enquiry, may be examined and looked into by opposite party No.2 considering the pleadings on record and claim of the petitioner . In so far as the jurisdiction of opposite party No.2 is concerned, the Court is of conclusion that irrespective of any such decision of this Court under challenge in WA
