Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.07.2003 as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 18/22.11.2002. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the challenge is to the order of punishment by which the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect for a period of two years was imposed on the petitioner. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the 1st respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the correctness of the impugned order by raising several grounds; that the money belongs to the Co-operative Society therefore the first charge itself is unsustainable. Another ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.10.2002 granting 7 days to submit his explanation and the same was to expire on 17.10.2002. On 16.10.2002, the petitioner requested 30 days time to submit his explanation. But without considering the said representation and without passing any order on the said representation, the impugned order of stoppage of increments came to be passed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent board by relying upon the counter affidavit would contend that though the representation given by the petitioner on 16.10.2002, the order of punishment was passed only on 18.11.2002 and nothing prevented the petitioner from submitting the explanation. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the impugned order do not call for any interference. Admittedly it is a case where a penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. Though it is stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, it has affected his chance for securing promotion at the appropriate time. The authority issued a second show cause notice on 10.10.2002 and granted 7 days time for the petitioner to submit his further statement of defence. It is further admitted by the respondents that the petitioner made a request for extension of time by 30 days and his request was much before the expirty of the time limit for submitting his representation. However the Disciplinary Authority did not choose to pass any order on the said representation, but on 18.11.2002 passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not given any further explanation. 5. However the Disciplinary Authority did not choose to pass any order on the said representation, but on 18.11.2002 passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not given any further explanation. 5. In my view, this approach of the second respondent is erroneous, since the right given to the petitioner to submit his representation to the second show cause notice is very valuable right and that cannot be denied on technical grounds. That apart when a request has been made by the petitioner for extension of time, it is for the authority to either accept or reject such request. Admittedly, no such order has been passed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground alone as it has been clearly established there is violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, the impugned order are set and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall submit his further representation to the second show cause notice, before the second respondent, within a period of three (3) weeks, before the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the same shall be considered by the second respondent and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.