JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is an employee of the second respondent Cooperative Society. Disciplinary action was initiated against him. In the disciplinary proceedings, the second respondent imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect by an order dated 28.1.2011. 2. The petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent on 20.7.2012. The revision was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 1.8.2012 on the sole ground that the revision was filed beyond the period of limitation. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner sent detailed representations dated 21.8.2012 and 25.2.2013 to the first respondent explaining the delay in preferring the revision petition. The same was also rejected by the impugned order dated 3.7.2013 stating that the reasons given in the representation dated 25.2.2013 are not acceptable to the first respondent. 4. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order dated 3.7.2013. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 6. The petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by the second respondent vide order dated 28.1.2011. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act before the second respondent on 20.7.2012. 7. When the revision was made belatedly without filing an application to condone the delay, the authority should have returned the papers to file an application to condone the delay. On the other hand, the revision itself was rejected on the ground that the revision was filed belatedly. Thereafter, he filed an application explaining the delay. The same was rejected by the impugned order dated 3.7.2013 stating that the reason for filing revision belatedly, is not acceptable. 8. The impugned order dated 3.7.2013 is cryptic. No reason is given for rejection. 9. The petitioner has stated that he underwent heart surgery and he was taking treatment and he has to retire in 2 years. These facts were not considered by the first respondent. In the normal course, the first respondent should take a liberal view in such a matter and decide the issue on merits. On the other hand, the order was passed by the first respondent in a cryptic manner. 10. These facts were not considered by the first respondent. In the normal course, the first respondent should take a liberal view in such a matter and decide the issue on merits. On the other hand, the order was passed by the first respondent in a cryptic manner. 10. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent to decide the entire issue including delay, on merits. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.