ORDER 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 6.3.2018 in R.P. No. 420/2017 (Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank and others v. Nek Ram Singh) whereby the review petition filed by the appellants arising out of order dated 12.5.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 13597/2016 (Nek Ram Singh v. Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank and others), was dismissed. 2. The writ-petitioner challenged the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him. The writ-petitioner raised an argument that he is not being permitted to engage a Defence Representative. In view of the said fact, the Court passed the following order : 12. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances, to avoid further litigation and to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents are directed to pass the final order in the departmental enquiry in accordance with law, after giving a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend his case and if required by the petitioner, with the aid of a defence representative of his choice as already indicated above. The petitioner is also directed to participate in the proceedings without seeking any adjournments. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. The respondent-employer filed a review petition before the learned Single Bench, which was dismissed vide order impugned in the present appeal. 4. We find that as to whether there is a violation of principles of natural justice or whether the defence representative, as sought for by the petitioner, has been appointed or not and what are the consequences thereof, are not the matters which could be gone into by the learned Single Bench in a petition challenging the departmental proceedings without the employer to conclude the same. It is only after culmination of enquiry proceedings and after imposition of punishment, any right will accrue to the aggrieved person to challenge the order of punishment before an appropriate forum including the departmental appeal and later before the Court of Law, as may be advised. But, there cannot be any direction in the pending enquiry to permit a fresh opportunity of hearing to the writpetitioner with the aid of another Defence Representative. 5. But, there cannot be any direction in the pending enquiry to permit a fresh opportunity of hearing to the writpetitioner with the aid of another Defence Representative. 5. In view thereof, we find that the learned Single Bench ought to have recalled the direction to permit the writ-petitioner to take the assistance of another Defence Representative, as such cause was premature for the learned Single Bench to examine. 6. Smt. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner relied upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 963/2011 (Mohd. Imran Siddique v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 16.9.2011 to contend that the present appeal against an order passed in review petition is not maintainable. 7. We do not find that the order passed in Mohd. Imran Siddique (supra), is for the proposition that no writ appeal against an order passed in review petition would be maintainable. In an appeal against the order passed in review petition, the grounds of challenge are limited to the extent of grounds of seeking review. Since the review is only against an order to provide the assistance of another Defence Representative even though the enquiry has proceeded substantially, it is a ground which can be raised by the appellants. We find that such direction of providing assistance of Defence Representative cannot be sustained, which would entail fresh departmental proceedings. 8. Consequently, the present appeal and review petition is allowed. However, it shall be open to the writ-petitioner to raise all questions of law and fact against the order of punishment, which may be passed against him, if any, in accordance with law. It may be stated that any observation by the learned Single Bench while deciding the writ petition is only for the purposes of deciding the writ petition and will not be taken into consideration in any subsequent proceedings before any Court or authority.