Judgment : The petitioner has suffered an order of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by an order dated 14. 2003. Aggrieved against that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was also taken by the Additional Chief Engineer. The Additional Chief Engineer without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal and without even assigning any single reason, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, questioning the order of the Additional Chief Engineer, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though after the report of the Enquiry Officer was submitted, the petitioner received second show case notice to submit his explanation and even after submitting his second explanation on 3. 2003, which was received by the respondent department on 3. 2003 and was registered in the current register against No.074 on 3. 2003, in Register No. 341 dated 3. 2003, which indicates clearly that the second explanation submitted by the petitioner has also not been properly considered and without considering the second explanation, the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order slapping the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The case of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is unreasonable and therefore the same has to be set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was filed only with a limited prayer to remand the matter back to the Original Authority, to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass appropriate orders by recalling the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative affect and the request for remand was rejected. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. It is an admitted fact that the Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report. By a second show cause notice dated 12. 2003 a copy of the enquiry report was furnished and the petitioner was called upon to give his second explanation within a period of seven days time. It is not known whether the petitioner’s request for extension of time has been granted by the respondent/Department herein or not. By a second show cause notice dated 12. 2003 a copy of the enquiry report was furnished and the petitioner was called upon to give his second explanation within a period of seven days time. It is not known whether the petitioner’s request for extension of time has been granted by the respondent/Department herein or not. It appears that no further extension of time has been granted. However, the petitioner has come forward with a detailed explanation. The same was also submitted which is evident from the entry made by the department in current register against No. 074 on 3. 2003 in Register No. 341 dated 3. 2003. It is pertinent to note that whether the date of submission of second explanation on 3. 2003 is well within time or not is not questioned by the petitioner as well as the respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no further extension of time was granted to the petitioner and in such an event non-consideration of the second explanation, which was submitted belatedly, on 3. 2003, cannot be pressed into service. 6. Further, the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority has not been properly considered for the simple reason that the impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, who is the Appellate Authority, is only a cryptic order containing few lines and the same has not mentioned the facts of the case as to how the appeal has arisen and on what point the Appellate Authority is dissatisfied with the memorandum of appeal and on what count the Appellate Authority is satisfied with the reason given by the Original Authority does need acceptance as nothing has been mentioned by the Appellate Authority, right to reason is an indispensable part of sound administrative system and sound reasons always reflect the application of mind on the part of the authority dealing with such order and giving a reasoned order being a very part of dispensation of justice by the Administrative Authority as well as the Quasi-judicial Authority and since no single reason has been given by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. While doing so, the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. It is made clear that the matter shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible for the reason that the petitioner is due to retire soon from service. No costs.