JUDGMENT M. Nagaprasanna, J. - Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 08.05.2013 and the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 12.01.2018, whereby, the suspension period of the petitioner was treated as not spent on duty on issuance of an Administrative Warning. 2. Brief facts that are germane for consideration in the subject lis are as follows: At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Office Manager in the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as the Corporation for short). Alleging certain omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 07.12.2010 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner on 14.12.2010, submitted a representation before the Disciplinary Authority for revocation of the order of suspension stating that he has not committed any misconduct and on consideration of the same, his suspension was revoked by an order dated 07/24.02.2011. 3. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet dated 07.03.2011 under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules for short). The petitioner having replied to the charge sheet and not being satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 4. The Enquiry Officer pursuant to the enquiry proceedings held that the charges levelled against the petitioner as not proved . The Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 08.05.2013, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer issued an administrative warning to the petitioner not to repeat such acts in future and in the same order held that the suspension period of the petitioner would be treated as leave / not spent on duty. 5. Challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 08.05.2013, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.48825/2013. This Court by order dated 04.02.2014, noticed the fact that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal relegated the matter to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its proceedings dated 24.06.2014 affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority by a bald and laconic order. This Court by order dated 04.02.2014, noticed the fact that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal relegated the matter to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its proceedings dated 24.06.2014 affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority by a bald and laconic order. The petitioner questioned both the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority before this Court in W.P.No.46831/2014 and this Court by the order dated 21.07.2017, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for consideration afresh and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose the appeal within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 08.05.2013 and Appellate Authority dated 12.01.2018, is before this Court in the subject writ petition. 6. Heard Sri Mukkannappa S.B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled against the petitioner as not proved and the Disciplinary Authority accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer could not have issued Administrative Warning and having issued a warning could not have treated the period of suspension as not spent on duty. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - Corporation would submit that a lenient view is taken by the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner though the charges levelled against him were grave. But in the light of the fact that they were not proved, he has restricted his submission only to issuance of the administrative warning and further submits that it is the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to treat the suspension period as such. 9. Admittedly, the offshoot of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was the report of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 08.05.2013, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further recorded that there is no financial loss to the Corporation by the alleged acts of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, the offshoot of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was the report of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 08.05.2013, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further recorded that there is no financial loss to the Corporation by the alleged acts of the petitioner. Thereafter, closed the case of the petitioner by administrating a warning that he should not repeat such acts in future. Having administrated a warning, the suspension period between 07.12.2010 to 24.02.2011 was treated as leave which would mean not spent on duty. 10. The only issue that falls for my consideration is, whether the Disciplinary Authority having administrated a warning could have treated the period of suspension as leave? 11. Rule 8 of the said Rules insofar as it pertains to imposition of minor penalty, reads as follows: 8. Nature of Penalties: One or more of the following penalties for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, may be imposed on Government Servants, namely.- (i) Fine in the case of Government Servants belonging to State Civil Services, Group-D; (ii) Censure; (iii) Withholding of increments; (iii-a) Withholding of promotion; The afore-extracted Rule indicates the penalties that can be imposed upon a Government Servant after following the procedure stipulated under Rule 11 of the said Rules. In term of Rule 8, which deals with penalties that can be imposed, warning is not a penalty enumerated in the Rules. Thus, the administrative warning that is given to the petitioner is not a penalty that is imposed. If warning is not a penalty, then the period of suspension being treated as leave would become illegal. 12. The cumulative effect of all the above narrated facts namely, the report of the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further holding that no loss is caused by the acts of the petitioner read with Rule 8 of the said Rules, would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the order of the Disciplinary Authority directing that the period of suspension of the petitioner to be treated as leave / not spent on duty, as illegal. 13. 13. Any other interpretation for treatment of suspension period when a minor penalty is imposed upon a Government Servant would by itself become a penalty that would be higher than what is imposed as a minor penalty, as the treatment of period of suspension is a consequence to the imposition of any penalty, it would be illegal if the consequence is allowed to override the main action. The treatment of period of suspension in a case where no penalty or a minor penalty is imposed cannot be more onerous than the penalty itself. A caveat, the facts and circumstances of each case will have to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, there being no penalty in the eye of law, the period of suspension to be leave or not spent on duty, would by itself amount to a penalty. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order: a. The writ petition is allowed in part. b. The order dated 08.05.2013 of the Disciplinary Authority treating the period of suspension from 07.12.2010 to 24.02.2011 as leave is set aside and the period is directed to be treated as spent on duty. c. The petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits that would flow from the order treating the period of suspension as spent on duty. d. The respondents - Corporation shall comply with the order within period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.