Judgment :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order of reversion dt.30.5.09 passed by the R2, vide Ann-L to the WP, under the facts and circumstances of the case.) The petitioner in this petition has assailed the order of the 2nd respondent-authority at Annexure ‘L’ and sought for to issue writ of certiorari to quash the same and also to issue any other appropriate order or direction. 2. Alleging that petitioner-workman was unauthorisedly absent for a period of six months commencing from 8.5.93 to 26.11.93 an enquiry was instituted against her and the enquiry report was submitted to the effect that she is not guilty of misconduct. However, it appears, her absence continued till 24.3.94. In the meanwhile the disciplinary authority having examined the matter, being not satisfied with the enquiry report, ordered for fresh enquiry and during the pendency of the fresh enquiry, the workman was promoted during 2004 from the post of Junior Assistant to Assistant. In the meanwhile in order to initiate fresh enquiry a notice came to be issued by the Management to the workman on the ground that earlier enquiry report was set aside. The workman before this Court has challenged the said notice. To put an end to the litigation this Court by imposing a minor penalty concluded the matter in W.P.No.3396/06. Thereafter, on the ground that during the pendency of the enquiry she has been promoted to the post of Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant. A decision was taken by the respondent-authority to revert her back to her original post stating that the candidate shall not be considered for promotion during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. Hence, this petition by the workman on various grounds. 3. Heard. 4. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the workman has submitted that even as per Regulation 24 of the KSRTC Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971 the Corporation only permits for further enquiry and not for fresh enquiry much less, the disciplinary authority has no power to set aside the enquiry finding and order to hold a fresh enquiry which is nonest in the eye of law and even as per the guidelines produced along with Annexure-R1 for filling up the promotional posts, it does not lay any bar for promotion. 5. 5. Per-contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Management has submitted that Regulation 24 of the KSRTC Servants (C & D) Regulations of 1971 provides for to order for fresh enquiry and since the file of the petitioner was misplaced her case was considered for promotion during 2004. However, pursuant to the order of the disciplinary authority relying upon Regulation 24, a fresh enquiry being ordered which is pending, as such, an action was taken by the Management to revert the workman from the post of Assistant to Junior Assistant, as without notice of the pending disciplinary proceedings against the workman she had been considered for promotion during 2004. Subsequently on noticing the said fact she has been reverted, which cannot be found fault with. 6. Having heard the Counsel for the respective parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: Whether the respondent-authority is justified in considering the case of the petitioner for reversion from the post of Assistant to Junior Assistant, after she being promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 2004? 7. As it transpires, for the unauthorized absence during 1993-94 an enquiry was instituted. Somewhere during 1995 the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiring authority holding her not guilty of misconduct. Being not satisfied with the said report during 1998 the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to order for fresh enquiry by setting aside the earlier finding of the enquiring authority which was against the Management. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Management to set aside the enquiry report and also that such a power is not available to the disciplinary authority to set aside the enquiry report. In this regard Regulation 23(24) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971 has to be read which reads as under: “23. Procedure for imposing major penalties: … … … … … …. … … … …. … …. …. In this regard Regulation 23(24) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971 has to be read which reads as under: “23. Procedure for imposing major penalties: … … … … … …. … … … …. … …. …. … (24) The Disciplinary Authority if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of this Regulation as far as may be.” The very wordings in the regulation provides for to order for further enquiry and nothing has been mentioned clearly in the said regulation to set aside the enquiry earlier held much less in the case on hand. It appears no reasons have been assigned to hold fresh enquiry moreover, no provision has been provided for fresh enquiry except for further enquiry. In the circumstances, such an order passed by the disciplinary authority appears to be nonest in the eye of law and also much less when no reasons have been assigned to order for fresh enquiry. 9. It transpires that when a show cause notice came to be issued, to save from the situation the petitioner shown to have approached this Court and to put an end to the litigation this Court thought of disposing of the matter while imposing a minor punishment. However, this Court did not go into the merits as to whether either a fresh enquiry could be ordered or not. The very matter which was kept pending without initiation of proceedings till 2004 from 1998 and thereafter during 2004 when they sought for initiation of proceedings after lapse of nearly six years it appears to be unjust on the part of the department to the determent of the petitioner. If at all such an enquiry should have been ordered being not satisfied with the manner in which the proceedings has been conducted by the enquiring authority then necessarily immediately such an order could have been ordered instead it has slept over the matter for several years thereafter on one day thought of issuing notice for fresh enquiry which is not permissible in law. Moreover to defend herself the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the said notice ultimately that litigation also concluded. Moreover to defend herself the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the said notice ultimately that litigation also concluded. Be that as it may. The fact remains that for all practical purpose immediately after 1998 when the Management did not pursue the matter within the reasonable time to launch further enquiry and thereafter such a decision being taken cannot be treated as enquiry pending against the petitioner. Moreover Annexure R1 which is produced by the Management, which are the guidelines for filling up the promotional post, specifically provides for, as on the date of consideration of the cases for promotion there should not be any bar imposed for promotion on the employee in the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, no material has been produced by the Management to show that there is a bar imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion. Even though a stand has been taken by the Management to the effect that the file was misplaced by the caseworker at the instance of the petitioner, but such a stand does not hold water. Even otherwise, when ordering of fresh enquiry has to be treated as nonest then the question of stating that there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner in the absence of a specific order in the disciplinary proceedings not to consider the case of petitioner’s case does not arise. However, it appears the officer who was holding the post of disciplinary authority by surmise has taken a decision to revert the case of the petitioner from the post of Assistant of Junior Assistant. Even assuming that by oversight the petitioner’s case has been considered for promotion but there was no such violation in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. In the circumstances any notice that is issued by the Management to revert her from the post of Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant is not permissible. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure ‘L’ is quashed.