Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the order treating period of suspension as leave of the kind due and directing to treat the said period as duty period. 2. The respondent was employed as Multi Purpose Health Worker and after rendering service for 40 years he retired on 30.4.2007. Re was placed under suspension on 25.7.2003 and charge sheet for major penalty dated 9.2.2004 was served upon him under the provisions of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. He was reinstated on 21.4.2005. The Inquiry Officer gave report dated 18.10,2005 in favour of the respondent. However, disciplinary authority disagreed with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer and served a show cause notice dated 27.1.2006, proposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, after considering the stand of the respondent, vide order dated 9.5.2006 minor penalty of warning was imposed and suspension period was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. The said order was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the same was arbitrary and was passed without following the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was defended by filing written statement by taking the plea that disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of Inquiry Officer and imposed penalty after giving due opportunity and in such a situation, the authority was competent to treat the suspension period as leave of the kind due. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the respondent and held that in the facts and circumstances, treating suspension period as leave of the kind was not called for. It was also held that no notice was given separately for denying salary as was required under the relevant rules. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Krishan Sewak v. State of Haryana and another 1997 (4) RSJ 162, Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana and another 2003(4) S.C.T. 261 : 2004(1) RSJ 235 and Y.P. Sehgal v. State of Punjab and another 1992(2) S. C. T. 179:1992 (1) SLR 538 holding that where punishment of censure was imposed, it was not: fair to deny wages for suspension period, particularly when no separate notice was given before passing such order. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. It is undisputed that on the date of alleged incident, the respondent had already rendered 36.years of service. The alleged misconduct of the respondent was that he failed to get generator started by bringing fuel and also used impolite language. The charge was denied by the respondent by stating that he was on leave and he had expressed his difficulty in absence of budget for diesel, which was treated as using of impolite language. The Inquiry Officer upheld the plea of the respondent that he was on leave and duty to bring fuel was of the person who was on duty. It was also held that he did not misbehave, as alleged. He only participated in a protest alongwith other staff. Reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer have not been shown to have been recorded. No separate notice for denying wages during suspension period has been shown to have been issued, as required under the rules. 6. In view of the fact that respondent has already retired after rendering 40 years of service and except the alleged single incident, thers is nothing else against him and the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge, support the plea of the respondent that in the circumstances, there was no ground to deny wages to the respondent for the period of suspension, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed.