Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner retired as Soil Conserva­tion Officer, Rai Bareilly in the year 2004. He was placed under suspension on the alle­gations of misconduct. A departmental en­quiry was held against him. 3. By order dated 18th June, 2001 the pe­titioner was punished with censure entry and recovery of Rs. 14, 867.18 from the salary. With regard to period of his suspension and salary, the order passed by the State Govern­ment provided for a separate consideration. By order dated 22nd February, 2008 the State Government, after considering the pet­itioner's representation, after his retirement, adjusted his entire period of suspension to­wards leave and treating the period to be spent on duty, allowed him 3/4 salary with allow­ances. The petitioner preferred a representa­tion, which was rejected on llth February, 2009. It is contended that the petitioner pre­ferred an appeal, which may be decided by the State Government, under Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Ap­peal) Rules, 1991. Rule 11 provides for right to appeal- except in a case, where orders are passed by the Governor. 4. The appointing authority of the peti­tioner as Soil Conservation Officer is State Government and thus no appeal is maintain­able under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1991. A revision under Rule 13 is maintainable. In the present case, the order is passed by the State Government and that the petitioner's review petition has also been dismissed. He does not have any further right except to approach the State Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow or to file a writ petition to be entertained by the High Court, if the order is without juris­diction or in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Be that as it may. The impugned order of punishment was passed before his retirement on 18th June, 2001. The petitioner did not chal­lenge the order prior to his retirement in 2004, or even thereafter. He is now aggrieved by the order by which the period of his suspension has been regularised and he has been allowed 3/4th salary during the period. The order of punishment has become final. The order by which he was allowed 3/4th pay does not suf­fer from any illegality. The entire period has been treated to be in service. The petitioner did not work during the period of suspension. The order of punishment has become final. The order by which he was allowed 3/4th pay does not suf­fer from any illegality. The entire period has been treated to be in service. The petitioner did not work during the period of suspension. The State Government has been rather lenient with him by allowing him 3/4th pay during the period of suspension after the charges were established against him and he has been punished with censure and recovery, and af­ter giving him opportunity to represent against the proposed deduction of the entire amount. The petitioner was not fully exoner­ated of the charges to claim entire salary of the period of suspension. His request to treat the period of suspension between 17.6.1999 to 8.2.2000 could not be treated to be spent on medical leave, casual leave. An employee punished after a departmental enquiry does not have a right to apply to treat the period of his suspension to be spent on medical or ca­sual leave. The suspension order was stayed by the High Court. The leave has to be granted to a public servant strictly in accordance with the leave rules. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.