ORDER 1. The petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby the suspension period of the petitioner has been treated as Karyabhar (on duty) and withheld the salary of the suspension period. 2. The petitioner is working in the office of respondents as Office Assistant, Grade-II in the Distribution Center Karhal, Sheopur. The petitioner was suspended on 1.7.2011 and departmental enquriy was initiated by the respondents. Nothing against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry surfaced, therefore, vide order dated 19.2.2015 (Annexure P-2), minor penalty of censure has been inflicted and suspension period has been treated as Karyabhar. 3. The petitioner is being crestfallen for the reason that once the minor penalty has been inflicted therefore, as per the Fundamental Rule 54-B, the respondents-employer must have considered the case of the petitioner and given the salary for the suspension period. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Y. S. Sachan v. State of M.P. and other [ 2004(1) MPHT 22 ]. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has already been shown mercy and minor penalty has been inflicted. According to him, the order Annexure P-1 is in continuation of the order Annexure P-2, wherein the censure warning has been awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, explanatory letter (Annexure P-1) has been passed in accordance with provisions laid down in sub-rule (6) of Fundamental Rule 54-B. The aforesaid order is punitive in nature and therefore appealable. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Damodar Bagdey v. Food Corporation of India [2004(1) VIBHA 210= 2004(1) MPLJ 117 ] and the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by this Court (Gwalior Bench) in Writ Petition No.4335/2015. 5. Heard with consent finally. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been suspended by the respondents-employer and the departmental enquiry was instituted against him and when nothing concrete came against the petitioner then the respondents-employer had inflicted the minor penalty of censure to the petitioner and revoked the suspension. Therefore, the penalty of censure is a minor penalty as per Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Therefore, the penalty of censure is a minor penalty as per Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while interpreting the Fundamental Rule 54-B has held that employee is entitled to receive full salary for the suspension period. The said judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is based upon the Government of India circular dated 3.12.1985 which states that where the departmental proceedings against the suspended employee for imposition of the major penalty finally ends with the imposition of a minor penalty, suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of Fundamental Rule 54-B and the employee should be paid full salary and allowance for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under the Fundamental Rule 54-B. 7. Facts of the instant case are covered by the case of Y.S. Sachan (supra). 8. On the other hand, case as relied upon by the counsel for the respondents/State is not applicable in the present fact situation of the case. Here the case of rule 54-B(6) of Fundamental Rules is not involved. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. Respondents are directed to pay full salary to the petitioner for the suspension period. If the subsistence allowance has been granted earlier to the petitioner, the same may be adjusted in accordance with law. The said exercise be completed within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. 11. Petition stands allowed. Rajiv Shrivastava for petitioner; Rajendra Bhargava for respondents.