JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J. - The petitioner, a conductor in the Uttar Pradesh? that he Road Transport Corporation, was placed under suspension by an order dyer his 28-6-1986 which was followed by a charge-sheet dated 15-7-1986. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted, a report, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Thereafter the Punishing Authority issued a show cause notice dated 30/31 January, 1987 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) stating therein that it was in agreement with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly the report was approved by the Punishing Authority and the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why his two future increments be not withheld and an adverse entry be not made in his character roll. 2. On receipt of the said show cause notice the petitioner submitted his reply, but no orders were passed and it appears that the Punishing Authority vide order dated 30-10-1987 appointed another Enquiry Officer to go into the same very charges. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the said notice, dated 30-10-1987, but the same was dismissed as premature. Pursuant to the said notice another enquiry report was submitted in the matter and on that basis the Punishing Authority viz. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Aligarh removed the petitioner from service by order dated 25-1-1990. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner went in appeal, but the same was rejected by the Deputy General Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Western Region, Meerut. The validity of these two orders is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Punishing Authority having once accepted the first enquiry report and having issued a show cause, notice to award minor punishment, was not justified in reopening the whole matter. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Successor of the Assistant Regional Manager by whose order proceeding was reopened, had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the order passed by the earlier Regional Manager accepting the first enquiry report and approving minor punishment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the proceeding was reopened without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the proceeding was reopened without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri R. C. Shukla as also Sri S. K. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. I am of the considered opinion that the Successor Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. was not justified in holding fresh enquiry which was earlier concluded with an enquiry report (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and which was also accepted by the then Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. by his order contained in the show cause notice (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). Upon transfer of the Assistant Regional Manager, who had passed the order Annexure 4 to the writ petition, his successor had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal. over the earlier order passed by the then Assistant Regional Manager. In any case no such order could have been passed behind the back of the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As a matter of fact not even an order was passed but the proceeding was reopened just by issuing a notice dated 30-10-1987 to the petitioner informing him that Sri Rahul Saxena, the then Assistant Regional Manager (Karmik), Aligarh had been appointed as Enquiry Officer. There was no occasion to appoint another Enquiry Officer when the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry report earlier submitted into the matter was (5) (SIC) Punishing Authority. 5. The order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 25-1-1990 (Sic) by the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Aligarh as maintained by the Appellate Order dated 30-5-1990 is illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 6. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 25-1-1990 and 30-5-1990 are hereby quashed. 7. However instead of sending the matter back to the Assistant Regional Manager for awarding punishment in tune with the first show case notice (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), I direct the Appellate Authority to consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as proposed in the first show cause notice. 8. The parties shall bear their own costs.