JUDGMENT : Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 91 1. In this case the order of punishment is dated November 15, 1990, i.e., prior to November 20, 1990, the date specified in the judgment of this Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar & others (1993 (6) J.T.1). The only ground upon which the High Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the punishment is the non- supply of the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report before imposing the punishment. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the said ground is no longer available or tenable. 2. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. No costs. 3. It, however, appears that the respondent has preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which was pending on the date he filed the writ petition. It appears that the said appeal is still pending. Be that as it may, the said appeal shall now he disposed of on merits and in accordance with law under a speaking order. If the appeal has been formally disposed of already, (i.e., without going into merits) the same may be revived and he disposed of on merits, 4. It is obvious that the interim order of this Court dated November 11, 1991 in this matter stands vacated with this order. At the same time, it is clarified that the subsistence allowance already paid to the respondent in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order shall not be claimed back by the appellant. Civil Appeal Nos. 4422 & 4423/91 5. The respondents were dismissed from service pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry. The High Court has set aside the order of punishment on the only ground that a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was not furnished to the respondents before imposing the punishment. The orders of punishment in both these cases are earlier to November 20, 1990. In view of the decision of this Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar & Others (1993 (6) J.T.1), the appeals are liable to he allowed and are accordingly allowed here. No costs. 6. It, however, appears that several other contentions were raised by the respondents in the respective writ petitions which were not dealt with by the High Court. No costs. 6. It, however, appears that several other contentions were raised by the respondents in the respective writ petitions which were not dealt with by the High Court. The matter must accordingly go back to the High Court for dealing with the other contentions and for disposing of the writ petitions afresh according to law. It is obvious that the interim order made in these cases stands vacated with this order. But it is directed that the subsistence allowance, if any, paid in pursuance of the said interim order shall not he claimed back by virtue of this order.