Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.:- This writ petition has been filed to assail the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Claim Petition No.1455 of 2008 by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, allowing the claim petition of Respondent no.1 while holding that he would be entitled to get full salary for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance already paid to him. It appears from the narration of facts that Respondent no.1 joined as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department on 15.2.1972. He was later promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the office of Superintending Engineer, VI Circle, Irrigation Works, Lucknow. Vide order dated 26.8.2005, he was assigned the duty to assist one Sri V. K. Singh, Executive Engineer. It appears that on 09.5.2005 Respondent no.1 was found absent from duty by the Minister concerned and, thus, placed under suspension. He was issued a charge sheet on 05.1.2006, which he replied on 27.1.2006. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 25.4.2006 was issued. Respondent no.1 submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 23.5.2006 wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, after a gap of one and a half years he was punished with censure vide order dated 11.1.2008, which he challenged by way of claim petition before the Tribunal. Thereafter, another notice dated 15.2.2008 was issued to show cause as to why his claim for salary of the suspension period, be not denied, which he replied on 25.2.2008. However, vide the order dated 10.9.2008 Respondent no.1 was deprived of the salary for suspension period. In this background, on due consideration of pleadings of claim petition, the tribunal allowed it by passing the impugned order. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for petitioners-State submitted that Respondent no.1 was absent from duty, therefore, he was not entitled to get full salary for the suspension period. Learned counsel also submitted that it is not a case of not holding departmental enquiry, but the enquiry report was submitted without a regular inquiry and only after receiving a reply to the charge-sheet. We have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for petitioners-State and we do not find any force therein, in view of detailed discussion in the impugned judgment. We have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for petitioners-State and we do not find any force therein, in view of detailed discussion in the impugned judgment. In para 8 of the judgment, learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has given reasons for arriving at the conclusion as under: "From the perusal of punishment order, as well as also written statement, it is evident that the impugned order of punishment has been passed merely after obtaining reply to show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner. Neither any date, time or place was fixed for the purposes of enquiry, nor witnesses were examined, nor oral enquiry was held, therefore in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent on the part of the enquiry officer to find out as to whether absence of the petitioner was deliberate or it was circumstantial and this fact could not be established without oral enquiry, which has not been done in the instant case. So far as the salary for suspension period is concerned, once, the impugned order of punishment is found unjustified, the suspension order has also become unjustified. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of the Tribunal towards a decision 2007 (2) LBESR 494 (All.): Ashu Nandan Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Nagar Vikas, U.P., Lucknow, and Ors; in which it has been laid down that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his salary for suspension period if the petitioner is awarded minor punishment after his suspension. Suspension could not be resorted unless the allegations are so serious that it may ordinarily warrant major penalty, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the salary for suspension period. Suspension could not be resorted unless the allegations are so serious that it may ordinarily warrant major penalty, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the salary for suspension period. In the present case, absence of the petitioner could not be proved deliberately or intentionally and, therefore, the suspension of the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified entitling the petitioner for full salary, therefore, the impugned order of punishment regarding withholding of salary for suspension period is also liable to be set aside and the petitioner shall be entitled for payment of full salary for suspension period w.e.f. 09.05.2005 to 10.01.2008 except the subsistence allowance, if any, already paid to him." Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that when a charge-sheet is issued for holding enquiry which, on conclusion, may lead to imposition of major penalty, it would be obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to hold a regular departmental enquiry. Admittedly, no oral/regular departmental enquiry was held and, on the other hand, only on the basis of reply to the charge sheet punishment was imposed. The Tribunal has placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in 2007 (2) LBESR 494 (All.): Ashu Nandan Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Nagar Vikas, U.P., Lucknow, and Ors. wherein it has been laid down that an employee cannot be deprived of his salary for the period of suspension, if his misconduct is visited with a minor punishment on conclusion of enquiry after placing him under suspension. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment (paras 7 & 8) on reproduction would read as under:-- "7. Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) provides where in the opinion of the authority competent to order reinstatement, the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall, subject to sub-rule (8) be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. The discretion conferred under Rule 54(B)(3) upon the competent authority is not arbitrary, but has to be formed on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion conferred under Rule 54(B)(3) upon the competent authority is not arbitrary, but has to be formed on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. Under Rule 4 (1) of 1999 Rules, the appointing authority in its discretion may place a Government Servant under suspension against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding but proviso thereto restrict the power of suspension to be exercised in a routine manner and provides as under: Provided that suspensions should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty... 8. Therefore, suspension could not be resorted unless the allegations are so serious that it may ordinarily warrant major penalty. In the case in hand, the charges have not resulted in any penalty whatsoever under 1999 rules. That being so, on a cumulative reading of Rules 3 and 4 of 1999 Rules, read with Fundamental Rule 54-B(3), in our view, it is difficult to comprehend that the suspension of the petitioner was justified. On the contrary, we are of the view that the suspension was wholly unjustified entitling the petitioner for full salary and allowances. The order dated 30th July, 2002, therefore, impugned in this writ petition cannot sustain." Thus, finding no reason to interfere with impugned judgment, we dismiss the writ petition.