JUDGMENT : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 1. Sri K.K. Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and its authorities. None appeared on behalf of respondents-3 to 4. I, therefore, heard above counsels appearing in the matter and proceed to decide it ex-parte against respondents-3 and 4. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by sole petitioner, Ram Sumarni Verma challenging order dated 02.07.2001 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby punishment of "severe warning" was administered to petitioner and he was required to deposit Rs. 590/-; order dated 21.05.2002 (date is wrongly mentioned since correct date is 04.05.2002 which is order passed on petitioner's application/appeal and part of Annexure-13 to the writ petition) rejecting his appeal and order dated 18.06.2003 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi rejecting petitioner's representation against aforesaid two orders. 3. Fact in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are, that petitioner was working as "Nabikar and Rajaswa Moharrir" in Nagar Palika Parishad, Barua Sagar, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as "NPP"). 3. Fact in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are, that petitioner was working as "Nabikar and Rajaswa Moharrir" in Nagar Palika Parishad, Barua Sagar, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as "NPP"). Vide order dated 20.05.1996 passed by Executive Officer, NPP, petitioner was placed under suspension and, thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 17.08.1996 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was issued containing five charges as under:- **vkjksi la[;k 1& vki dh fu;qfDr bl ikfydk esa uk;d dj ,oa jktLo eksgfjZj ds in ij dh xbZ Fkh rFkk vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh uxj ikfydk ifj"kn] c:vklkxj vkids fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh gSA vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds vk/khu dk;Zjr jgus nkSjku vkius fn0 29-2-1996 dks muds lkFk vHknzrk dk O;ogkj ,oa vi'kCnks dk iz;ksx djrs gq, deZpkjh vkpkj lafgrk dk mYya?ku fd;kA vkjksi la[;k & 2 uxjikfydk ifj"kn d:vklkxj dh v/;{k egksn;k Jherh m"kk jkuh dq'kokgk }kjk 10-5-96 dks dk;kZy; dk vkdfLed fujh{k.k ds le; vkidks mifLFkfr iaftdk ij vuqifLFkr vafdr fd;k x;kA vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa v/;{k egksn;k }kjk vkils Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;kA vkius vius Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;kA vkius vius Li"Vhdj.k esa ikfydk ds loksZPp vf/kdkjh ds izfr ftl izdkj dh Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx fd;k gS mlls mudh izfr"Bk ,oa lEeku dks Bsl igqWaph gSA ikfydk ds loksZPp vf/kdkjh ,oa izfrf"Br tu izfrfuf/k ds izfr vuknj iw.kZ Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx djds vkius deZpkjh vkpkj lafgrk dk nwljh ckj mYya?ku fd;k gSA vkjksi la[;k&3 ikfydk }kjk vkidks 25-11-1994 bZ0 dks uxjikfydk ifCyd Ldwy c:vklkxj dk fyfidh; dk;Z fu"ikfnr djus gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vkius ifCyd Ldwy] c:vklkxj ds fnukad 25-11-1994 ls 4-4-1996 rd vkius vius fyfidh; dk;Z dky esa vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, fuEu foRrh; vfu;ferrk;sa dh gSa%& 1- Ldwy ds f'k{kk l= o"kZ 1994&95 es Ldwy esa ulZjh ls ysdj d{kk 5 rd dqy 131 Nk= v/;;ujr jgsA Ldwy ds vfHkys[kksa ds vuqlkj v)Z okf"kZd ijh{kk 'kqYd 10@& izfr Nk= fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k ijUrq vki }kjk ek= 70 Nk=ksa dk gh ijh{kk 'kqYd tek djk;k x;kA bl izdkj vkius uxjikfydk ifCyd Ldwy c:vklkxj dks 610@& :0 dh vkfFkZd {kfr igqWapkbZ gSA 2- vkids }kjk f'k{kk l= 1995&96 esa 200 Mk;fj;kWa dz; dh xbZ Fkh ftl dh dher izfr Mk;jh 10@& Nk= ls olwy dj Ldwy dks"k esa tek djk;h tkuh FkhA vkius pktZ gLrkUrj.k esa Jh jek'kadj nqcs dks ek= 91 Mk;jh gLrkUrfjr dhA bl izdkj vki }kjk 109 Mk;fj;ka Nk=ksa dks forfjr dh xbZ ftldh dher 1090@& :0 Ldwy dks"k esa tek ugha dh xbZA ftlls Li"V gS fd vki }kjk mDr /kujkf'k dk xcu djds Ldwy dks vkfFkZd {kfr igqWpkbZ xbZ gSA 3- vki }kjk Ldwy dh lgk;d v/;kfidk dq0 vyds'ojh] dq0 laxhrk vxzoky o dq0 _rq dq'kokgk dk ekg ebZ 1995 dk osru eq0 909@& psd la0 021002 fnukad 16-5-1995 dk vkgfjr fd;k x;k ijUrq osru iaftdk ekg ebZ 1995 ds vuqlkj ek= dq0 vyds'ojh jkBkSj dk osru eq0 284@& :0 gh forfjr fd;k tkuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS] 'ks"k eq0 625 :0 pktZ gLrkUrj.k rd u rks forjfr dh xbZ vkSj uk gh Ldwy dks"k esa okfil tek djk;k x;k bl izdkj vki }kjk mDr /kujkf'k dk xcu fd;k x;kA 4- uxjikfydk ifCyd Ldwy esa vkids dk;Zjr jgus ds nkSjku vki dk Hkrhtk Jh fot; flag fujatu d{kk izFke esa v/;;ujr jgk rFkk vki gh mDr Nk= ds laj{kd jgs ijUrq vkius vius Hkrhts dh Ldwy Qhl ekg tuojh 1996 ls twu 1996 rd 50 @& :0 izfrekg dh nj ls 300@& okf"kZd ijh{kk 'kqYd :0 20@& dqy :i;k 320@& tek ugha djk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vkius vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, Ldwy dk :i;k 320@& dh vkfFkZd {kfr igqWapkbZ gSA vkjksi la[;k & 4 vkius vius Ldwy ds fyiidh; dk;Zdky esa Ldwy cSad [kkrs ls fuEu /kujkf'k;ksa dk vkgj.k fd;k gS%& 1- psd la[;k&066792 fnukad 13-12-94 eq0 1] 500-00 :i;s v)Zokf"kZ ijh{kk vfxzeA 2- psd la[;k 066800 fnukad 1-5-95 eq0 220-00 :i;s Nk=ksa dh fonkbZ vfxzeA 3- psd la[;k&21003 fnukad 19-3-98 eq0 1]000-00 :i;s okf"kZd ijh{kk iqjLdkj fooj.kA 4- psd la[;k 021006 fnukad 10-7-1995 eq0 500-00 :i;s vfxzeA 5- psd la[;k 021009 fnukad 27-7-1995 eq0 225-00 :i;s psd la[;k 021013 fn0 23-9-95 eq0 2500-00 :i;s & Jh y[kuyky iBsfj;k ,MoksdsV >kWalhA 6- psd la[;k 021017 fn0 6-11-95 eq0 :0 0338-00 d{kk rhu dk iathdj.kA ijUrq vki }kjk pktZ gLrkUrj.k esa mDr vkgfjr /kujkf'k ls lEcfU/kr i=kofy;kWa pktZ gLrkUrj.k ugha dh x;h gSa vkSj vkt rd mDr /kujkf'k;ksa ds O;; dh lek;kstu i=kofy;kWa okmpj vkfn izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA mDr /kujkf'k;ksa ds vkgj.k ds lEcfU/kr i=kofy;ksa dk izLrqr u djus ls u dsoy vkidh dk;Zi)fr o lr;fu"Bk lafnX/k gS cfYd vki mDr /kujkf'k;ksa ds xcu ds fy;s nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la[;k & 5 ikfydk dk;kZy; psd la[;k 066488 fnukad 3-7-1992 }kjk eq0 2]000@& :i;s fjV la[;k 10203@92 txUukFk izlkn vxzoky cuke uxj ikfydk c:vk lkxj] okn dh mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh iSjoh gsrq cSad ls vkgfjr fd;s x;s rFkk mDr /kujkf'k U;k;ky; izfdz;k gsrq vkidks fnukad 4-7-1992 dks ikfydk }kjk gLrxr djk;h x;h Fkh ijUrq vki us vkt rd mDr /kujkf'k ds O;; okmpj lek;kstu i=koyh esa izLrqr ugha dh ftlls mDr /kujkf'k ds viO;; fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vkidh Hkwfedk lafnX/k gSA** "Charge No. 1: You were appointed on the post of Nayab Kar Rajasva Moharrir in this Nagar Palika Parishad, and the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Barua Sagar is your appointing officer. While working under the Executive Officer, you on 29.02.1996 behaved with him in an undignified manner and used foul language, thereby violating the employees code of conduct. Charge No. 2: At the time of sudden surprise of the office made by Shri Usha Rani Kushwaha, Chairperson of Nagar Palika Parishad, Karua Sagar on 10.05.1996, you were recorded on the attendance register to be absent. An explanation was sought by the chairperson regarding your absence. You have in your explanation used such a language for the highest authority of the Palika as to adversely affect her prestige and reputation. You have by using insulting language towards the highest authority of the Palika and reputed public representative violated the employees code of conduct for the second time. Charge No. 3: You were on 25.11.1994 directed by the Palika to discharge clerical duties for Nagar Palika Public School, Barua Sagar. You have while performing your clerical duties at Public School Barua Sagar from 25.11.1994 to 04.04.1996 misused your office and committed the following irregularities: 1. In the academic session 1994-95 of the school, total 131 students from nursery to class V were studying in the school. As per the school records, the annual examination fee was fixed to be Rs. 10 per student. But examination fee of 70 students only were got deposited by you. In this way, you have caused financial loss of Rs. 610 to Nagar Palika Parishad School, Barua Sagar. 2. In the academic session 1995-96, 200 diaries had been purchased by you for which Rs. 10 per diary was to be realized from the students and was to be deposited in the school funds. In course of transfer of charge, you handed over just 91 diaries to Shri Rama Shankar Dubey. In this way, 109 diaries were distributed by you to the students prices whereof to the tune of Rs. 1090 was not deposited in the school funds. This goes to show that you have embezzled the said amount, thus causing financial loss to the school. 3. Salaries of Km. Alkeshwari, Km. Sangeeta Agarwal and Km. Ritu Kushwaha, Asstt. Teachers of the school, for the month of May, 1995, totalling Rs. 909, were withdrawn by you through Cheque No. 021002 dated 16.05.1995 but as per the Salary Register for the month of May, 1995, the salary to the tune of Rs. 3. Salaries of Km. Alkeshwari, Km. Sangeeta Agarwal and Km. Ritu Kushwaha, Asstt. Teachers of the school, for the month of May, 1995, totalling Rs. 909, were withdrawn by you through Cheque No. 021002 dated 16.05.1995 but as per the Salary Register for the month of May, 1995, the salary to the tune of Rs. 284 only is shown to have been disbursed to Km. Alkeshwari Rathore. The remaining Rs. 625 was neither disbursed nor deposited back into the school funds till the transfer of charge. In this way, the said amount has been embezzled by you. 4. In course of your stint at Nagar Palika Public School, your niece Shri Vijay Singh Niranjan was studying in Class I and it was you who was a guardian for the said school. But you have not deposited your niece’s school fees for the months of January, 1996 to June, 1996 at the rate of Rs. 50 per month totalling Rs. 300 and his annual fee of Rs. 20, aggregating to Rs. 320. In this way, you have misused your office, thus causing financial loss of Rs. 320. Charge No. 4: You have in course of your stint as clerk at your school withdrawn the following amounts from its bank accounts: 1. Cheque No. 066792 dated 13.12.1994 to the tune of Rs. 1,500.00: Half-yearly Examination Advance. 2. Cheque No. 066800 dated 01.05.1995 to the tune of Rs. 220.00: Students Farewell Advance. 3. Cheque No. 21003 dated 19.03.1998 to the tune of Rs. 1,000.00: Annual Examination Prize Distribution. 4. Cheque No. 021006 dated 10.07.1995 to the tune of Rs. 500.00: Advance. 5. Cheque No. 021009 dated 27.07.1995 to the tune of Rs. 225.00 Cheque No. 021013 dated 23.09.1995 to the tune of Rs. 2500.00: Shri Lakhan Lal Patheria, Advocate, Jhansi. 6. Cheque No. 021017 dated 06.01.1995 to the tune of Rs. 0338.00: Class III Enrolment. But the records pertaining to the aforesaid amounts withdrawn have not been handed over by you in course of transfer of charge and the records, vouchers etc. pertaining to the adjustment of the aforesaid spendings have not been presented so far. Non presentation by you of the records pertaining to the withdrawal of the said amounts casts doubts not only on your way of working but on your integrity as well. As a matter of fact, you are guilty of embezzling the said amounts. pertaining to the adjustment of the aforesaid spendings have not been presented so far. Non presentation by you of the records pertaining to the withdrawal of the said amounts casts doubts not only on your way of working but on your integrity as well. As a matter of fact, you are guilty of embezzling the said amounts. Charge No. 5: For pursuing Writ No. 10203/1992: Jagannath Prasad Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika Barua Sagar at the Allahabad High Court, Rs. 2000 was withdrawn through cheque no. 066488 dated 03.07.1992 of the Palika Office. The said amount was handed by the Palika to you on 04.07.1992 for the said Court process. But you have not so far presented the voucher as to spending of the said amount so as to be on the adjustment file. For the reason of the said amount thus being wasted, your role is doubtful." (English Translation by Court) 4. Petitioner moved an application dated 06.07.1996 requesting respondent-4 to supply certain documents mentioned in the said letter. Said letter reads as under:- ^^vkjksi la[;k 1 ds leFkZu esa izLrkfor fuEu vfHkys[kks dh izfr;ka miyC/k djkus dh d`ik djsaA 1- deZpkjh x.k Jh Tokyk izlkn Lo.kZdkj ofj"B fyfidA 2- Jh jes'k pUnz >k fyfidA 3- Jh jkds'k ckcw jk; uk;c dj jktLo eksgfjZjA 4- Jh ghjkyky dq'kokg uk;c dj jktLo eksgfjZjA 5- Jh tkfdj vyh pijklh ds c;ku dh izfr;kaaA vkjksi la[;k 2%& dfFkr tkap vf/kdkjh dh fjiksVZ vkjksi la[;k 3%& esa Ldwy ls lEcfU/kr i=kofy;kWa ,oa dS'k cqd 'kqYd jftLVjA f'k{k.k 'kqYd cqds vkfn fujh{k.k gsrq fnykus dh d`ik djsaA** "Kindly provide copies of the following documents proposed to be used in support of charge no. 1: Copies of statements of the employees 1. Shri Jwala Prasad Swarnkar, Senior Clerk 2. Shri Ramesh Chandra Jha, Clerk 3. Shri Rakesh Babu Rai, Nayab Kar Rajasva Moharrir 4. Shri Heera Lal Kushwah, Nayaba Kar Rajasva Moharrir 5. Shri Zakir Ali, Peon Kindly ensure to provide for inspection: Charge No. 2: Report of the said inquiry officer Charge No. 3: Records such as Cash Book Fee Register, Tuition Fee Books etc. pertaining to the school." (English Translation by Court) 5. Petitioner submitted letter dated 06.09.1996 requesting respondent-4 to supply documents relied on in the charges and, thereafter, permit time to submit reply to charge-sheet. 6. A reminder for documents was given on 20.09.1996. pertaining to the school." (English Translation by Court) 5. Petitioner submitted letter dated 06.09.1996 requesting respondent-4 to supply documents relied on in the charges and, thereafter, permit time to submit reply to charge-sheet. 6. A reminder for documents was given on 20.09.1996. It appears that petitioner continued to demand documents but did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet. He has made a complaint vide letter dated 12.08.1998. 7. A notice was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhasker" dated 17.12.1998 that documents desired by petitioner sought to be served upon him on 17.11.1998 by Special Messenger but petitioner was not found at his address. Thereafter, documents were sent by registered post which was also received back unserved, hence, petitioner is given a weeks' time to approach Office and collect documents so that enquiry proceedings are concluded, expeditiously. 8. It is not stated anywhere in the writ petition that petitioner approached office of authorities concerned for collecting documents, as directed in the aforesaid notice. Instead, petitioner again sent an application dated 18.12.1998, served in the office of respondent on 22.12.1998, making demand of documents. 9. Thereafter on 21.01.1999, petitioner submitted reply denying all the charges. 10. It appears that an enquiry report was submitted by Enquiry Officer on 02.07.2001. Thereafter respondent-4 passed order dated 02.07.2001 reinstating petitioner without salary and also administering a "severe warning" for committing a misconduct of showing indecent behaviour with Appointing Authority. With reference to charge-2, petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 590/- in the Treasury of Nagar Palika Public School. 11. Pursuant to said order, petitioner joined on 02.07.1991 and also assured respondent-4 that he shall deposit requisite amount and submit report. Joining report submitted by petitioner i.e. Annexure-10 to the writ petition dated 02.07.2001 reads as under:- ^^fuosnu gS fd vkids cgkyh vkns'k la0 89 fnukad 2-7-2001 ds vuqikyu esa eSa vkt fnukad 2-7-2001 dks iwokZUg viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k izLrqr djrk gwWaA d`i;k esjs ;ksxnku vk[;k Lohdkj dj eq>s dk;Z ij ysus dk d"V djsaA vkns'k esa mfYyf[kr /kujkf'k eSa 'kh?kz gh tek dj vuqikyu vk[;k izLrqr dj nwWaxkA** "It is submitted that in compliance with your reinstatement order no. 89 dated 02.07.2001, I in the forenoon of this 02.07.2001 present my joining memo. Kindly allow my joining memo and take me on duty. 89 dated 02.07.2001, I in the forenoon of this 02.07.2001 present my joining memo. Kindly allow my joining memo and take me on duty. I shall at the earliest present compliance report after depositing the amount mentioned in the order." (Emphasis Added) (English Translation by Court) 12. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.08.2001, petitioner made an appeal to Chairman, NPP stating that he was illegally placed under suspension for about five years and one month and denial of full salary for the said period is not justified, therefore, full salary should be paid to him for the period of suspension. 13. By letter dated 14.03.2002, petitioner requested respondent-4 to supply copy of enquiry report. 14. A reminder was submitted by petitioner on 20.04.2002 to Chairman, NPP requesting for payment of full salary for the period of suspension. 15. On the aforesaid letter dated 20.04.2002, Chairman, NPP passed following order, which is part of Annexure-13 to the writ petition, as under:- ^^eSaus lEiw.kZ i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA okndkjh ds izR;kosnu esa fuyEcu dky dk osru fgr ykHk ikus dk Bksl vk/kkj ugha gS vkSj u gh lR;rk ,oa fo'oluh;rk dk cks/k gksrk gSA QyLo:i izR;kosnu fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% okndkjh dk vihy izR;kosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** "I perused the entire file. In the representation of the litigant, there is no strong ground for availing the benefit of salary for the period of suspension and it reflects neither truthfulness nor credibility. As a result, the representation is liable to be rejected. Hence, the appeal/representation of the litigants is rejected." (English Translation by Court) 16. Against order of denial of full salary to petitioner for the period of suspension, he made a representation before Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide letter dated 05.10.2002. The same has been rejected by Commissioner vide letter dated 17.07.2003. 17. Aforesaid orders of denying full salary to petitioner for the period of suspension have been challenged in the present writ petition. 18. It is contended that denial of full salary to petitioner is not one of the punishment prescribed under Rules and, therefore, when petitioner was reinstated without imposing any punishment and that too without holding guilty of charges, denial of full salary to petitioner for the prolonged period of five years and one month is patently illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. 19. 19. Respondent-Npp has contested the matter by filing counter affidavit in which basic facts are not disputed. It is, however, said that petitioner has been rightly denied full salary for the period of suspension since charges of misbehaviour with Appointing Authority and non deposit of full fee during service period were found proved. 20. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner, he has reiterated what he has said in the writ petition and, therefore, I am not repeating the same. 21. The provisions pertaining to disciplinary action against servants of Municipal Board have been made in U.P. Municipal Boards Servants (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1960") published in U.P. Gazette dated 16.04.1960. Punishment which can be imposed upon servants of Municipal Board are provided under Rule 4 which reads as under:- "4. Subject to the provisions of these rules and any law governing a Municipal Board, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon a servant by the competent authority, namely-- (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to a lower post or a time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale. (iv) Suspension. (v) Removal from service of the municipal board which does not disqualify for future employment. (vi) Dismissal from the service of the municipal board which ordinarily disqualifies for future employment. (vii) Fine (in case of servants appointed under Section 75 of the U.P. Municipalities Act only) : Provided that the total amount of such fine shall not ordinarily exceed and a half month's pay of the employee fined and it shall be deducted from his pay in instalments not exceeding one-quarter of a month's pay. (vii) Fine (in case of servants appointed under Section 75 of the U.P. Municipalities Act only) : Provided that the total amount of such fine shall not ordinarily exceed and a half month's pay of the employee fined and it shall be deducted from his pay in instalments not exceeding one-quarter of a month's pay. Explanation.--The discharge-- (a) of a person appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of the appointments and the rules governing the probationary service, or (b) of a person appointed otherwise than under contract to hold a temporary appointment, on the expiration of the period of the appointment, or (c) of a person appointed otherwise than under contract to hold a temporary appointment, for an unspecified period, in accordance with the provisions or Rule 11, or (d) of a person engaged under contract, in accordance with the terms of his control, does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule or of Rule 5." 22. It does not appear that a "severe warning" or the direction to deposit Rs. 590/- claimed to be non deposited part of fee are the prescribed punishment under Rule 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents have found petitioner guilty of any misconduct so as to impose upon him penalty prescribed under the Rules. 23. In other words, it can be said that petitioner has not been imposed any penalty prescribed under the Rules but has been reinstated in service. Suspension and the amount payable to servant of Municipal Board during period of suspension is governed by Rule 8 of Rules, 1960 which reads as under:- "8.(1) Subject to the provisions of any law governing the municipal board, a servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding, may, in the discretion of the competent authority be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry. Note.-- As a rule, suspension should not be ordered unless the allegations against the servant are so serious that in the event of their being established they may ordinarily be expected to warrant his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Suspension, where deemed necessary, should, as far as possible, immediately proceeded the framing of charges and their communication to the servant charged. Suspension, where deemed necessary, should, as far as possible, immediately proceeded the framing of charges and their communication to the servant charged. (2) When a servant is suspended, he shall be given a subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The amount of such allowance shall be governed by rules as applicable to Government servants." 24. Rule 8(2), therefore, by reference bring in the corresponding Rules applicable to Government servants and it takes this Court to Fundamental Rule 54-B which deals with issue of payment of full salary during the period of suspension and it reads as under:- "54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the Government servant or the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his reinstatement on superannuation as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53. where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or court proceeding instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. (3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule(8), to be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceeding instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within sixty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules(8) and (9), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. (6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule(1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule(1), who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule(3) or sub-rule (5), as the case may be. (7) In a case falling under sub-rule(5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purposes: Provided that if the Government servant desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. NOTE- The order of the competent authority under the proceedings proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of - (a) Extraordinary leave in excess of five years in the case of permanent Government servant. (b) Leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent Government servant. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule(2), sub-rule(3) or sub-rule(5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (9) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule(3) or sub-rule (5) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53. (10) Any payment made under this Rule to Government servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement or, the date of retirement on superannuation while under suspension. Where the emoluments admissible under this Rule are equal to or less than those during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant. NOTE- Where the Government servant does not report for duty within reasonable time after the issue of the order of reinstatement after suspension, on pay and allowances will be paid to him for such period till he actually takes over charge." (Emphasis Added) 25. The full salary during the period of suspension, can be denied to a Government servant when a suspension is not found wholly unjustified. 26. In the present case, as already discussed, no punishment prescribed under Rules has been imposed upon petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that suspension of petitioner was justified in any manner. The full salary during the period of suspension, can be denied to a Government servant when a suspension is not found wholly unjustified. 26. In the present case, as already discussed, no punishment prescribed under Rules has been imposed upon petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that suspension of petitioner was justified in any manner. This is fortified from the fact that Rule 8 clearly provides that suspension shall not be resorted unless the allegations against Municipal servant are so serious that in the event of their being established they may ordinarily be expected to warrant his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Suspension, therefore, ought to be resorted when there is a possibility of imposition of major penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank but in the present case, enquiry has resulted in imposition of no prescribed penalty at all. The severe warning and direction to deposit alleged unpaid fee of Rs. 590/-, being not the prescribed punishment, it can be said that authorities found that any charge was so serious as to justify imposition of even a lightest punishment upon petitioner. Therefore, it can be said that suspension of petitioner, in any manner was justified. That be so, denial of full salary to petitioner for the period of suspension is clearly illegal, arbitrary and lacks sanction of Statute. 27. It is also well settled that a punishment not prescribed under the Rules, could not have been imposed as has been propounded by Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2012 4 JT 105 . 28. In the result, impugned order dated 02.07.2001 and appellate orders, in my view, cannot be sustained. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 02.07.2001, 04.05.2002 and 18.06.2003 are hereby set aside to the extent that petitioner has been imposed punishment which are not prescribed in the Rules and the same has been upheld in appeal by Appellate Authority. 29. Petitioner shall be entitled to full salary during the period of suspension which shall be computed and paid within three months. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. 5,000/- against respondents- 3 and 4.