ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, for the petitioner and Mr. S. Srivastava, for respondent No. 1. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by the order under review this Court directed the disciplinary authority to exercise jurisdiction under Section 26(3) of the Rule, but the disciplinary authority had already referred the matter to the appointing authority, i.e. the chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD for short), who was a higher authority, observing that the charges were of serious nature and accordingly the appointing authority (CMD) exercised such jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and passed orders of dismissal on 4.3.1994. The CMD, who was also the appellate authority, by order dated 26.12.1994, dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 4.3.1994. In these circumstances, this Court held that the said order dated 26.12.1994 should not have been passed by the same authority, who passed the order on 4.3.1994. 3. It is submitted that the Management has been advised that in such circumstance, it will not be proper if the disciplinary authority passes a fresh order as per Rule 26 (3), as the appointing authority (CMD), being the higher authority, had already exercised such jurisdiction by passing the order dated 4.3.1994. It is submitted that Instead of order dated 4.3.1994, the order dated 26th December, 1994 may be quashed with a liberty to O.P. No. 1 to prefer an appeal before the Board of Directors. 4. Mr. Srivastava submitted that petitioner has not made out any ground for review. He further submitted that as the order under review was not complied by the disciplinary authority, within fifteen days, an application for contempt was filed by the writ petitioner (O.P. No. 1) and thereafter this review petition has been filed to escape from contempt. He further submitted that O.P. No. 1 has not been paid anything as yet and the Management is lingering the matter. 5. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that it will be just and proper in the interest of the parties that the disciplinary authority need not undertake an empty formality of passing order under Section 26(3) of the Rule, as his Superior authority had already exercised such power by order dated 4.3.1994. 5. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that it will be just and proper in the interest of the parties that the disciplinary authority need not undertake an empty formality of passing order under Section 26(3) of the Rule, as his Superior authority had already exercised such power by order dated 4.3.1994. Accordingly, the order under review is modified to the extent that the order dated 26.12.1994 passed by the appellate authority is quashed and O.P. No. 1 will be at liberty to file an appeal before the Board of Directors against the order dated 4.3.1994 passed by the appointing authority. 6. If such appeal is filed within six weeks from today, the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Company will dispose of the same after hearing O.P. No. 1, by a reasoned order in accordance with law, within two months from filing of such appeal. 7. With these observations and directions, this review petition is disposed of.