ORDER : B. Sudershan Reddy, J. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the respective parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent employee on a factually erroneous finding viz. that the inquiry report had not been supplied to the respondent employee even when the same was duly served on the respondent vide letter dated 29th June, 2004. It was also submitted that the respondent in fact made representation against the same on 16th July, 2004. From the judgment it appears that the High Court proceeded on the assumption that the punishing authority did not serve a copy of the inquiry report before forming its final opinion with regard to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer 4. The question is whether as a matter of fact the inquiry report was furnished to the respondent employee or not cannot be gone into by this Court in this appeal. The appellants can always seek relief by filing a proper application in the High Court. 5. It shall be open to the appellants to approach the High Court and file appropriate review petition and satisfy the court that as a matter of fact the report of the inquiry Officer was furnished even before the show cause notice was issued and thus there was no procedural violation of whatsoever nature. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the appellants choose to file a review petition within 30 days from today, the respondent shall not make any objection whatsoever as regards the limitation. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the appellants to approach the High Court by way of review petition if they are so advised in which event the matter shall be considered on its own merits since we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. It is needless to grant any liberty to the appellants to place reliance upon a judgment of this Court titled Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha reported in, (2010) 3 SCC 556 in C.A. No. 1639 of 2010, as it shall always be open to the parties to rely upon the judgments of this Court. 8. It is needless to grant any liberty to the appellants to place reliance upon a judgment of this Court titled Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha reported in, (2010) 3 SCC 556 in C.A. No. 1639 of 2010, as it shall always be open to the parties to rely upon the judgments of this Court. It is for the High Court to decide as to whether the judgments upon which reliance is to be placed are applicable to resolve the issues that arise for consideration. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.