JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, C.J. (Oral): This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14-9-2006 in Writ Petition No. 41799 of2003 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition which was filed by the respondent herein. 2. The writ petitioner H.V. Nagaraja was an employee of the Mangalore Electricity Supply Company. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an enquiry was ordered into certain charges against him. In the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer it was held that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority passed Annexure-D order dated 6-9-2002 "ordering for re-enquiry". In Annexure-D order, the Disciplinary Authority observed that during the enquiry, the then Executive Engineer failed to produce documentary evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner and that the petitioner was held not guilty on account of the non-production of the documentary evidence. It was to plug the said loophole that the Disciplinary Authority ordered re-enquiry. Based on Annexure-D, Annexure-E order was passed appointing another Enquiry Officer to conduct re-enquiry and submit his report within three months. Challenging Annexures-D and E, the petitioner filed the writ petition contending that the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 did not provide for any such re-enquiry and that what was contemplated under Rule 11-A of the said Regulations was only further enquiry. When the appellant received information about the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the appellant issued Annexure-R1, order dated 3-10-2003 which is described as corrigendum. According to Annexure-RI, the word "re-enquiry" in Annexure-D has been substituted by the words "to obtain all the relevant records and documents for verification and to complete the incomplete enquiry early". However, the learned Single Judge overruled the contentions of the respondent in the writ petition and upheld the contention of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and Annexures-D and E were quashed. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we can only sympathise with the inefficiency and callousness on the part of the Disciplinary Authority which issued Annexure-D order. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we can only sympathise with the inefficiency and callousness on the part of the Disciplinary Authority which issued Annexure-D order. Wisdom dawned late only when the Disciplinary Authority received information about the writ petition and became aware of the contention in the writ petition. At such belated stage, the Disciplinary Authority cannot be allowed to plug the loophole in the earlier order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure-R1 order is seen issued on the wrong premise that the earlier enquiry was not complete and that further enquiry was ordered to complete the incomplete enquiry. The materials placed on record show that the evidence in the earlier enquiry proceedings had been closed and the enquiry had been completed by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved. Thereafter, it is not open to the Disciplinary Authority to describe the enquiry as incomplete enquiry and to direct the so-called further enquiry by another Enquiry Officer. We have no doubt in our mind that Annexure-R1 is a desperate attempt to come out of the difficult situation confronted by the respondent in the writ petition. Hence, the learned Single Judge was right and justified in allowing the writ petition. 4. There is no merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the time granted by the learned Single Judge to pay the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner may be extended for a reasonable period. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the time granted by the learned Single Judge is extended by one month from today.