JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.—The appellant has filed this, appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1829/08, dt. 1.2.12, 2011. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: The respondent was working as a Junior Engineer under the appellant. After attaining the age of superannuation he retired from the service on 31.5.2003. His retirement benefits were not settled by the appellants on the ground that respondent was incharge of Stores and certain articles which were in the custody of the respondent were not returned and no accounts were furnished. Therefore, a demand was made to recover a sum of Rs. 4,35,588/-, for which respondent sent a reply on 18.7.2003 stating that those materials have been used by the Department after his transfer from Yelahanka to Magadi and he is not answerable to the same. However, the appellant called upon the respondent to make good the shortage and proceeded to take further action in the matter. Therefore, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before this court in W.P. No. 50090/04, which Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 8.6.2005 directing the appellants to consider the reply of the respondent and take action in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellants again passed an order directing the respondent to make good loss of Rs. 4,35,588/- in respect of certain articles which were not accounted by him while he was discharging his duties as a Store Keeper in 2000. Challenging the order, the respondent filed one more Writ Petition No. 22543/05, which Writ Petition came to be allowed on 21.12.2006 directing the appellants to conduct an enquiry and finalise the same within three months. Pursuant to the order of this court in the earlier Writ Petition within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, notice was issued as per Annexure-E dt. 29.3.2007. For which the respondent sent a reply. Thereafter without holding an enquiry an order is passed confirming the earlier order. The said order was questioned by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1829/08. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order on the ground that no enquiry can be initiated under Regulation 171, four years after the alleged incident. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The said order was questioned by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1829/08. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order on the ground that no enquiry can be initiated under Regulation 171, four years after the alleged incident. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The main contention of the appellants before us is that even if the learned single Judge had come to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to complete the enquiry as ordered in the earlier W.P. No. 22543/05, at best the learned single Judge was required to direct the appellants to conduct an enquiry afresh in accordance with law. By applying Regulation 171 he could not have allowed the Writ Petition in toto when there was a loss of revenue of Rs. 4,35,588/-. According to him, Regulation 171 would be applicable only if an enquiry is ordered four years after the incident. But in the instant case, notice has been issued within 2 years from the date of his transfer from Yelahanka to Magadi and there is a demand to make good the loss even before his retirement. Since the matter was pending before this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the learned single Judge could not have held that on account of Regulation 171 Enquiry could not have been held. Therefore, he requests the court to allow the appeal and set aside the order. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned single Judge is justified in allowing the Writ Petition as the appellants failed to initiate the enquiry within 4 years from the date of the incident. As the notice issued as per Annexure-E in the year 2007 the same was beyond 4 years from the date of the incident. In the circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 5. Having heard the counsel for the appellants, the following points are to be considered by this court in this appeal: 1) Whether the enquiry has been initiated against the respondent by the appellants within 4 years from the date of the incident as required under Regulation 171 of the KEB Regulation? 2) Whether any error is committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition? 6. 2) Whether any error is committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition? 6. So far as the first point is concerned, admittedly the respondent was working as a Store Keeper at Yelahanka as Store Keeper Grade-II. He was transferred from Yelahanka to Magadi. The allegation is that he did not return certain materials which were in the Store. On account of the same, a demand was made by the appellants calling upon the respondent to make good the deficiency. The said demand is within 4 years from the date of the incident. The incident has come to the notice of the appellants when the respondent was transferred from Yelahanka to Magadi in 2000. He has sent a reply denying the allegations on 18.7.2003. Therefore, it is clear that initial initiation is within 4 years from the date of the knowledge of the appellants. Thereafter on account of pendency of several Writ Petitions, enquiry has been completed. In the circumstances, we are of the view that Regulation 171 cannot be pressed into service and that the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside because as he has committed an error in holding that Regulation 171 would be bar for the appellants to proceed with the enquiry. Accordingly, we answer point-1. 7. So far as the second point is concerned, when we are holding that Regulation 171 is not applicable. If the direction issued by the learned single Judge in the earlier W.P. No. 22543/05 has not been followed by the appellants, at best the learned single Judge was required to direct the appellants to reconsider the matter and complete the enquiry in accordance with law. Without doing so, the respondent has been absolved from his liability if really there is a shortage of materials worth of Rs. 4,35,588/-. Accordingly, we hold an error is committed by the learned single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order parsed by the learned single Judge in W.P. 1829/08 dt. 12.12.2011 is set aside. The appellants are directed to complete the enquiry as required under the Regulation within a period of six months from today by giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent.