Judgment :- The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the Proceedings No.DC4/55135/96 dated 10. 2003, Memo No.DC4/55135/96 dated 11. 2004, Memo No.DC4/55135/96-3 dated 6. 2005 and Memo No.DC4/55135/96 dated 10. 2005, on the file of the 2nd respondent and Letter No.19197-A/HBI(2)/2005 dated 210. 2005, on the file of the 1st respondent. .2. The gist of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Divisional Accountant in Special Division-II, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore, he was kept under suspension on 26. 1998, on the ground of certain irregularities committed by him; that further, a charge memo was served upon him on 7. 1998, alleging irregularities in the allotment of rental quarters; that a detailed reply was given by him; that the explanation was not found satisfactory; that thereafter, there was an Enquiry Officer appointed; that he was of the opinion that the charge was not proved; that when the matter was placed before the Managing Director of the Board, he has got a dissenting view and found that it has been proved; that there was an imposition of punishment of withholding of 1/3rd pension for a period of five years; that he preferred an appeal, and it has been rejected as if it was out of time, and hence, the petitioner was compelled to file the writ petition before this Court. 3. 3. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, there was no irregularity in the allotment of rental quarters by the petitioner; that he was not the final authority for allotment; that as far as the allotment was concerned, while number of persons are involved, no enquiry has been initiated; that he was the only person found fault with and proceeded against; that even the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge has not been proved; that under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Managing Director to take a different view; that once the representations have been made, they have not been considered; that after making the representation, finally the appeal has been preferred; that the same has been rejected since it was out of time, that apart from that, he has attained superannuation in the month of June 1998; but, he has not been allowed to retire in view of the pendency of the proceedings, and under the circumstances, the writ petition has got to be ordered. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Housing Board is that it is a case where the irregularity was proved; that it is true that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding in favour of the petitioner; but, assigning sufficient reasons, a dissenting view was taken by the Managing Director and the punishment was also imposed; that the representation was called for before awarding the punishment; that he has also done so; that once the punishment of withholding of 1/3rd pension for a period of five years was awarded, an appeal was preferred; but, it was out of time; that the authority had no power to condone the delay, and hence, it has been rejected; and that under the circumstances, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. .5. It is an admitted position that there wasa charge levelled against the petitioner in respect of the allotment of rental quarters when he was working as Divisional Accountant at the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore. It is also not in controversy that he put forth his explanation, and an enquiry was conducted, as a result of which it was found by the Enquiry Officer that he was not guilty of the charge. It is also not in controversy that he put forth his explanation, and an enquiry was conducted, as a result of which it was found by the Enquiry Officer that he was not guilty of the charge. When the matter was placed before the Managing Director, he took a dissenting view and after calling for the representation, has imposed the punishment in question. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that he has preferred an appeal, and the same has been rejected since it was out of time. It is further to be pointed out that the authority has no power to condone the delay. Originally, a report was given by the Enquiry Officer that the charge was not proved, and then, the dissenting view was taken by the Managing Director. In such circumstances, it is a fit case where the merits have got to be gone into. Now, the appeal preferred, was rejected since it was out of time. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be given an opportunity to put forth his case before the appellate forum. Along with this, other proceedings were also initiated, and orders have been passed by this Court. 6. In the instant case, what is noticed is that instead of preferring an appeal, the petitioner was going on making representations to the Managing Director, before whom the appeal has got to be preferred. Instead of doing so, he has made the representations. Even the representation could have been considered as appeal, but not done so. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the delay that has been caused in preferring the appeal, could be condoned. Accordingly, it is condoned, and the Housing Board is directed to take up the appeal originally filed by him, and dispose it of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.