ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. Respondent 1 was an employee of the appellant Company. He was issued memo dated 19-2-1997 along with the articles of charges on account of certain alleged misconduct. In Writ Petitions Nos. 3158, 32680 and 33737 of 1996, the appellant had filed an affidavit making a statement that it had withdrawn the memo dated 19-2-1997 issued to Respondent 1. After the disposal of the said writ petitions, the appellant served Respondent 1 with a memo dated 13-4-1999 repeating the same charges calling upon him to file further explanation, if any, to the charges contained in the memo dated 19-2-1997 within the given time. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent 1 filed Writ Petition No. 20634 of 1999 for declaration that the said memo dated 13-4-1999 was null and void and any further action taken pursuant to the same is devoid of the authority of law and tainted by mala fides. 2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that Respondent 1 instead of giving reply to the memo dated 13-4-1999 stating all the reasons and grounds available to him had straight away approached the High Court by filing the writ petition. In that view, the writ petition was rejected as premature. Respondent 1, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge made in the said writ petition, filed Writ Appeal No. 4833 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, accepting the contention of Respondent 1, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, quashed the memo dated 13-4-1999 and allowed the writ appeal. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 3. This Court on 3-1-2001 granted leave and made it clear that it would be open to the appellant to issue fresh charges and initiate the proceedings against the officers concerned. 4. Today, at the hearing Mr Ramasesh, learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that in view of the order of this Court dated 3-1-2001 aforementioned, the appellant completed the enquiry after issuing a fresh chargesheet to Respondent 1 and ultimately passed the order dismissing him from service; in the meanwhile, Respondent 1 attained the age of superannuation also. Respondent 1 has also filed appeal challenging the order of dismissal before the competent authority. Respondent 1 has also filed appeal challenging the order of dismissal before the competent authority. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in disturbing the order passed by the learned Single Judge when the learned Single Judge had permitted Respondent 1 to file a reply explaining as to why the second memo dated 13-4-1999 could not be issued against him having withdrawn the earlier memo. 5. Per contra, Ms Kiran Suri, learned counsel for Respondent 1 made submissions supporting the impugned order. She urged that when the appellant withdrew the charge memo issued earlier, it was not open to them to issue fresh charge memo again on the same charges. She also complained that this Court on 3-1-2001 left it open to the appellant to issue fresh charges; the appellant proceeded to hold enquiry on the same charges except changing the date of issuance of charge memo. 6. Taking note of the facts as stated above, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the respective contentions raised by both the parties to pronounce one way or the other as to whether it was open to the appellant to issue a second charge memo to Respondent 1 when, in the light of the order of this Court dated 3-1-2001 the appellant had already proceeded to issue fresh charge memo and dismissed Respondent 1 from service. It is stated that Respondent 1 has already taken action questioning the validity and correctness of the order of dismissal passed against him. But, at the same time, it may be necessary to say that it is open to Respondent 1 to challenge the order of dismissal on all the grounds available to him including the one that issuance of second charge memo, having been withdrawn earlier, similar charge memo was not permissible. The appeal is disposed of accordingly modifying the impugned judgment. No costs. Order accordingly.