Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- He was appointed on 06.06.2002 as General Manager in District Industries Centre, Tuticorin. Before assuming the said office by the petitioner, the second respondent conducted audit and find out some defects in the loan records in respect of the period commencing from 01.12.1993 to 31.08.2001. The second respondent sent several letters to the third respondent to provide proper answers for the defects pointed out in the audit inspection. After the petitioner's appointment as General Manager, there is no delay in respect of sending any reply to the second respondent. However, on 10.11.2003, the second respondent issued a charge memo against the petitioner. The main allegation in the charge memo is that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in forwarding the reply to the second respondent. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo on 10.11.2003. The order of punishment withholding next increment for one year without cumulative effect was passed on 30.12.2009 by the second respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 27.12.2010. The first respondent rejected the appeal on 02.05.2011 without assigning any reason. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said order in W.P(MD)No.12173 of 2011. This Court set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed the first respondent to pass a speaking order. The first respondent once again passed the impugned order without considering the points raised in the appeal. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, wherein it is explained as to under what circumstances, the impugned order of punishment was passed, which was confirmed in the appeal. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the impugned order of punishment was passed taking into consideration of the fact that there was no immediate action taken to rectify the mistake pointed out by the audit report, during which time the petitioner has not joined in the said place, in respect of the remainders letters issued commencing from 08.02.2002 onwards. Therefore, it is contended that this aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority. 6. Therefore, it is contended that this aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority. 6. In this case, it is seen that there was an audit conducted by the Director of Industries and Commerce, wherein some defects in the loan records in respect of the period commencing from 01.12.1993 to 31.08.2001 were found out. To rectify the said defects, repeated remainders were sent on 08.02.2002, 16.03.2002, 18.04.2002, 27.05.2002, 16.07.2002, 04.10.2002, 14.12.2003, 22.02.2003, 07.05.2003 and 26.08.2003. 7. The petitioner contended that he joined the service only on 06.06.2002 and therefore, the earlier remainders sent to his predecessor cannot be attributed as a delay on the part of the petitioner. I am not able to appreciate the said contention for the simple reason that even though the petitioner has joined the office at the place in question on 06.06.2002, the fact remains that after his joining, seven remainders commencing from 16.07.2002 were issued to the petitioner, when admittedly he was in the office. Therefore, even after receipt of such seven remainders, the petitioner has not rectified the mistake and informed the authority. In fact through his communication, dated 01.12.2003, the petitioner admitted the delay by stating that it was due to the reasons to trace the files, as they were in respect of cases related to 25 years. The appellate authority, after remand by this Court, has specifically stated the reasons for rejecting the appeal by extracting the same in its order at paragraph 5, which reads as follows:- “TAMIL” Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the appellate authority has not passed the speaking order. 8. Considering the nature of the charge levelled against the petitioner and the punishment imposed on him, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.