Judgment :- The petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 20.11.2007. The petitioner challenge the said order by way of writ petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P. (MD).No.10799 of 2007. This Court by an final order dated 211. 2008 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal. In the operative portion of the order, in paragraph 11, this Court has observed as follows:- "In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent dated 211. 2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to submit his explanation for the second show cause notice within a period of fifteen days from today (211. 2008) and on receipt of the same and after following the procedure established under law, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate final orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2007 are also dismissed". 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, by the impugned order dated 12.02.2009, the order of dismissal was rescinded and the petitioner was taken back into service. 3. In paragraph 8 of the order, the 2nd respondent directed as follows:- "8. Therefore, in obedience with the Court order dated 211. 2008, decision conveyed by DIGP (Laaw) Dte.Genl. Vide their signal No.J II-966/2007-LWP (II) dated 02.02.2009 and DIGP CRPF Chennai Signal No.J II 18/2008-EC-3 dated 10.02.2009, the following orders are hereby issued to meet the end of justice:- a) No.921162954 Ex-CT/GD R. Shanmuganathan of 142 Bn is hereby reinstated into service from the date of his reporting for duty. b) He is ordered to report for duties within 30 days of receipt of this order. c) Denovo order of DE against the individual will be issued on consideration of representation dated 012. 2008 of second show cause notice submitted by the individual". 4. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 25.04.2009, the petitioner was directed to submit explanation on the enquiry report given to the petitioner. The petitioner instead of submitting his explanation has come forward to challenge the said notice as not being in consonance with the earlier order passed by this Court. 4. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 25.04.2009, the petitioner was directed to submit explanation on the enquiry report given to the petitioner. The petitioner instead of submitting his explanation has come forward to challenge the said notice as not being in consonance with the earlier order passed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have conducted a denova enquiry and not a denova order on the enquiry. 5. A perusal of the order passed by this court, no where shows that a denova enquiry has been ordered by this Court. On the contrary, the dismissal order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to him. An opportunity was given in the form of submitting further explanation on the enquiry report. Instead of submitting the said representation, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the said notice. The intention of the petitioner is clear, that having entered service after his dismissal, thanks to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner wants to prolong the enquiry by interdicting at every stage of the proceedings. Such a move of the petitioner cannot be allowed. It must be stated that an opportunity to show cause against the enquiry report was not found in any service rules framed by the department. On the contrary, such a right was evolved by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Mohammed Ramzhankhan ( 1991 1 SCC 588 ). The Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the repeal of a second show cause notice by the amendment made to Article 311(2) of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment, the principles of natural justice requires that if the disciplinary authority differs from the enquiry officer, further opportunity should be given. Instead of availing such an opportunity, the petitioner has come forward to wrongly interpret the order passed by this Court on an earlier occasion. The contention of the petitioner is misconceived. The writ petition lacks in merits and accordingly dismissed. 6. Since the time limit fixed for submitting the explanation must have expired, the petitioner is given 15 days time from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order to submit his explanation. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.