ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the appellant - State submits that an order imposing punishment of ‘Censure’ has been imposed on the present petitioner, who holds the post of Assistant Administrative Officer strictly in accordance with law. 2. By virtue of order dated 19.10.2022, a writ petition against the same order had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge while reversing the finding of the Appellate Authority’s order dated 01.08.2019 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.03.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has drawn attention of the Court towards the operative part of the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2022, which reads as under : “Counsel for the petitioner submitted that only an explanation was called from him vide communication dated 09.10.2017 to which a detailed reply was given by him. After the submission of the reply by him, no further proceedings were taken up by the Department in terms of the Service Rules as provided and straightaway the impugned order has been passed. When inquired upon, learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any document available on record which could show that any notice of Enquiry in terms of the provisions as provided under the Rules of 1958 had been served on the petitioner before imposing the punishment vide the impugned order. In view of the said fact, the order impugned cannot be sustained on the sole ground that the same has been passed without adhering to the basic principles and the provisions of law. No enquiry or disciplinary proceedings have admittedly been initiated against the petitioner before imposing the punishment. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the order impugned dated 14.03.2018 and the appellate order dated 01.08.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. Stay petition also stands disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellants thereafter has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 14.03.2018 (Annex.8). The paragraphs of the aforesaid order referred by learned counsel are reproduced herein below: 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order was speaking one and an opportunity of hearing was accorded. Thereafter, the reply as filed was taken on record and the version of the respondent was also taken on record and accordingly, a considered order was passed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order was speaking one and an opportunity of hearing was accorded. Thereafter, the reply as filed was taken on record and the version of the respondent was also taken on record and accordingly, a considered order was passed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court towards Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and submits that the minor penalty of censure has been imposed without stating any reason. 7. The Rule 17 of the CCA Rules is reproduced as under : “Procedure for imposing minor penalties.– (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after – (a)The Government Servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make; (aa) holding an enquiry, in the manner laid down in Rule 16, in every case, in which it is proposed to with–hold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years, or with cumulative effect for any period or so as to adversely affect the amount of pension payable to him or in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (b) such representation, if any submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a) and the record of enquiry, if any, held under clause (aa), is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority; (c) an opportunity of personal hearing is given by the Disciplinary Authority to the Government Servant to explain his case, if so desired by him; (d) The Commission is consulted in cases where such consultation is necessary. (2) The record of proceedings in such cases shall include:– (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of allegations communicated to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the enquiry; (v) the findings of each allegation; (vi) the advice of the Commission, if any; (vii) the orders on the cases together with the reasons therefore.” 8. He further submits that the punishment of ‘Censure’ did not commensurate with the allegations levelled against him and was in excess. He further submits that the punishment of ‘Censure’ did not commensurate with the allegations levelled against him and was in excess. Lastly, he submits that in case, the censure is upheld then its impact may be detrimental to the cause of promotion of the present respondent-employee in tandem with the circular dated 22.10.2024. 9. The relevant part of the circular dated 22.10.2024 reads as follows: 10. This Court finds that the respondent while serving as an Assistant Administrative Officer has committed a delay in discharging his official functions. The record and revenue entry/issue of the khatedari sanad of the land was issued to the war widow - Mohini Devi with a delay. The respondent - employee had given a written reply explaining the delay due to bonafide work pressure. 11. After considering the reply and giving opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner Colonization passed an order of punishment of ‘Censure’ on 14.03.2018, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 01.08.2019. 12. This Court on bare perusal of the order dated 14.03.2018, which has also been reproduced in the present judgment is of the opinion that all the necessary ingredients of Rule 17 of CCA Rules have been followed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority intimated the incumbent government servant regarding the proposal to take action against him and also gave him the statement of allegations. Since the representations were considered and he was given an opportunity to produce any evidence. The Authority also gave reasons in its order as to why such delay for the benefit of war widow came under the purview of dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent. 13. This Court is satisfied that the order passed on 14.03.2018 is justified and thus, the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 14.03.2018 is hereby affirmed. However, so far as the circular dated 22.10.2024 is concerned, it is always the prerogative of the State to frame policy regarding the impact of the censure for the purpose of promotion. It is apparent from the circular that the censure shall have no more impact upon the promotion of a State employee prospectively from the date of enforcement of the circular. 14. It is apparent from the circular that the censure shall have no more impact upon the promotion of a State employee prospectively from the date of enforcement of the circular. 14. It is needless to say that the Appellate Authority shall strictly abide by the circular dated 22.10.2024 and any prospective promotion of the respondent-employee after the enforcement of circular shall not be denied. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.