ORDER R.K. Gupta, J. The Petitioner by way of filing this petition before this Court has challenged the communication which is Annexure-P-7 dated 4-3-1998. The Petitioner has been informed by this communication that since the Petitioner was suffering with the penalty under Regulation 30(1) therefore he was not eligible to participate in the process of promotion from Scale I to Scale II. The Petitioner has also challenged the order Annexure-P-16. by which the Petitioner's representation has been rejected by the Respondent. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent is a Regional Rural Bank and service conditions are governed by the regulations framed u/s 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act. 1976. Under Regulation 30 the penalties are prescribed. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since "Reprimand" is a penalty which is prescribed under Regulation 30(1), therefore reprimand not be a Censure or warning, therefore the Petitioner cannot be deprived of from participating in the selection. Facts leading to the present case are that the Petitioner was issued a charge-sheet, the Petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet. The Respondents thereafter by an order dated 25-7-1996. Annexure-P-4 imposed a penalty of warning, and also directed to be entered into the service record of the Petitioner. The process of selection started w.e.f. 23rd February. 1998. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a circular was issued by the NABARD which is filed along with the petition, as Annexure-P-8 to the petition. This circular has been issued on 3rd December. 1999. By way of Annexure-P-8. the circular issued by the NABARD the position has been clarified in terms of Regulation 30(a) of RR Bs Staff Service Regulations that reprimand is considered as a lightest minor penalty and Regulation 30(b) of the said Regulation stoppage of promotion constitutes a separate punishment. Therefore such lightest penalty of reprimand at a single instance cannot be sufficient ground to debar a person from promotion unless there are some other adverse features in the service records/performance appraisal report of the officers and where it has specifically been decided to award penalty of denial of promotion then only such officer can be debarred. As this circular was issued on 3rd December, 1999 i.e. much after when the process of selection was initiated i.e. w.e.f. 23rd February, 1998. As this circular was issued on 3rd December, 1999 i.e. much after when the process of selection was initiated i.e. w.e.f. 23rd February, 1998. The question in the present case is whether reprimand or a 'Censure' or "warning" can be treated to be a bar for the participation in the process of promotion. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that a circular is issued on 23rd February. 1998, by which it was clarified that an officer who has been imposed a penalty under Regulation 30(1)(a), then such a person shall not be eligible to appear in the process of selection for the next three years. It is contended that since the order of penalty was issued on 25-7-1996, therefore in terms to the circular as contained in Annexure-P-2 dated 23rd February, 1998 the Petitioner has rightly not been allowed to participate in the process of selection. It is also contended that the circular issued by the NABARD on 31st December, 1998 shall have no application in the present case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when a show cause notice Annexure P/2 was issued to the Petitioner, in the same it was mentioned that as to why severe warning which can be recorded in the service book be not inflicted. It is submitted that Petitioner when filed the reply, only warning was issued and. therefore, warning as such cannot be treated as reprimand. The meaning of the word 'reprimand' has not been defined under the regulation, therefore, the dictionary meaning has to be taken into account. According to Law Lexicon 1997 Edition, page 1663, the word "Reprimand" has been defined. According to it. "Reprimand means to reprove severely, especially, publicly or officially." The word "Reprove" according to dictionary meaning is "Formal rebuke (a person, conduct etc.)." The New Websters's Dictionary and Thesaurus page 319 also defines the word "Reprimand" which means to reprove severely; to chide, a sharp rebuke; a severe admonition. The word "Warning" has also been defined in Law Lexicon which means a previous intimation or threat of impending evil or danger; an advice to beware of a person or thing. According to the definition in the Dictionary as well as in the Law Lexicon, there does not seems to be any difference between the word "Reprimand" and "warning". Both carry the same meaning. According to the definition in the Dictionary as well as in the Law Lexicon, there does not seems to be any difference between the word "Reprimand" and "warning". Both carry the same meaning. In the present case while issuing show cause notice Annexure P/2 and also when the final order of punishment Annexure P/4 was passed, it was specifically mentioned that any penalty imposed shall be recorded in the service record of the Petitioner. Apparently the employer was intending to inflict a severe penalty for the fault for which Petitioner is punished. Since the employer itself intended to inflict penalty which is reflecting from the show cause notice as well the order that it will be recorded in the service book of the Petitioner, therefore, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that a warning even though being the lightest punishment, hence the employee as such would be entitled to participate in the selection process. Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 itself indicates that the persons those who have been visited with the minor penalties under Regulation 30(1), such persons shall not be entitled to participate in the process of selection for the next three years. The purpose of recording the warning in the service book of the Petitioner itself was clear to debar him for a period of next three years for the fault which he committed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in the present petition has not challenged the order Annexure P/2 by which the penalty is imposed but made only submission that the warning by itself would not be the reason to deprive the Petitioner from participating in the process of selection. The Apex Court in State of M.P. and Another Vs. I.A. Qureshi, considered the effect of minor penalty such as Censure and came to the conclusion that the minor penalty even censor will be sufficient to deprive any incumbent from participating in the process of selection. The Apex Court further considered that there is no difference between the word 'Censure' as well as 'Warning'. The relevant paragraph 8 is reproduced which is as under: We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Khanduja. "Censure" cannot be equated with a warning since under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1966. "censure" is one of the minor penalties that can be imposed on a government servant. The relevant paragraph 8 is reproduced which is as under: We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Khanduja. "Censure" cannot be equated with a warning since under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1966. "censure" is one of the minor penalties that can be imposed on a government servant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the penalty of censure which was imposed on the Respondent in the departmental proceedings was not a penalty as contemplated in the circular dated 2-5-1990. Once it is held that a minor penalty has been imposed on the Respondent in the departmental proceedings, the direction given in the said circular would be applicable and the sealed cover containing recommendations of the DPC could not be given effect because the Respondent has not been fully exonerated and a minor penalty has been imposed. The Respondent can only be considered for promotion on prospective basis from a date after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted and deserved to be rejected. No other point is argued. Petition as such stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed