JUDGMENT : (HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.) The petitioner, who was working with the respondent Corporation, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P22 order issued by the 1 st respondent herein. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner was working with the respondent Corporation as an Abkari worker. On account of purely emergent reasons - the requirement for bringing his ailing brother who was working abroad, the petitioner states that he applied and obtained a passport and travelled abroad. The afore travel was for around 15 days. The petitioner admits that he did not obtain an NOC from the employer for traveling abroad. Added to this, in the travel documents, the petitioner described himself as a businessman. 3. Citing the afore two reasons (i) not obtaining an NOC from the employer and (ii) describing himself as a businessman in the travel documents, proceedings were taken, and the petitioner was dismissed from service, as evidenced by Ext.P11 dated 17.01.2009. Against Ext.P11, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and during the pendency of the appeal as above, he was continuing in service. Ultimately, on account of the dismissal of the appeal, with effect from 17.01.2009 onwards, the petitioner was kept out of service. The order of dismissal as confirmed by the Board of Directors was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29720 of 2009 and ultimately, by Ext.P15 dated 10.06.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court found that the petitioner is sent out of service without following the mandate prescribed under the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited Employee's Service Rules,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service Rules') by conducting a proper domestic enquiry. Finding thus, the orders of dismissal were set aside, further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and permitting the respondents to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings. 4. It may straight away be noticed that in Ext.P15, this Court observed that the question as regards the regularization of the period during which the petitioner was so kept out of the service is to be decided “depending on the outcome of the domestic enquiry and penalty, if any imposed”. 5. On the basis of the directions in Ext.P15, by Ext.P16, the petitioner is reinstated in service on 06.07.2013. 5. On the basis of the directions in Ext.P15, by Ext.P16, the petitioner is reinstated in service on 06.07.2013. However, the question of regularization for the period from 17.01.2009 to 06.07.2013 was held against the petitioner, without much discussion. 6. Though a representation is filed, the same met with no success. This is followed with Ext.P18 dated 05.10.2013, formally concluding the domestic enquiry, permitted to be continued by this Court. The order at Ext.P18 finds that the action of the petitioner, noticed earlier, amounts to “grave misconduct and was against the Rules of the respondent Corporation” and on the basis of the afore, a “warning” is issued against the petitioner. The claim for regularization was again not properly considered and rejected. 7. The order at Ext.P18, was challenged to the extent regularization was not extended, before this Court. By Ext.P19, this Court, taking note of the directions issued in the earlier round, set aside the order at Ext.P18 to the extent regularization was rejected, directing the Corporation to take a fresh call on the above aspect. 8. It is in the afore circumstances that Ext.P22 is issued considering the contentions raised and again refusing to regularize the period referred to above, as prayed for by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P22 passed by the 1 st respondent in the afore circumstances. 10. I have heard Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 11. The sustainability or otherwise of the findings rendered in Ext.P22 issued by the 1 st respondent is the sole issue arising for consideration in this writ petition. 12. Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was an Abkari worker with the respondent Corporation. True, the petitioner obtained a passport and travelled abroad, describing himself as a businessman. The petitioner also did not obtain an NOC. It is in the afore circumstances that proceedings were taken against the petitioner, ultimately leading to the dismissal from service. This Court, by Ext.P15 judgment, set aside the dismissal, finding that the respondent has to follow the procedure prescribed and carry out a domestic enquiry in that regard. The question of regularization was left to be considered after the finalization of the afore proceedings. 13. This Court, by Ext.P15 judgment, set aside the dismissal, finding that the respondent has to follow the procedure prescribed and carry out a domestic enquiry in that regard. The question of regularization was left to be considered after the finalization of the afore proceedings. 13. It is in the afore circumstances that Ext.P18 is ultimately issued by the respondent Corporation after the reinstatement of the petitioner. True, Ext.P18, finds that the petitioner had acted against the Rules as well as the interest of the respondent Corporation. On the basis of the afore, ultimately, only a warning is issued against the petitioner. 14. The provisions of the Service Rules of the respondent Corporation under Rule 8 adopt the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), in those circumstances where the Service Rules do not contain provisions relating to a particular scenario. 15. In the case at hand, the petitioner claims regularization of the period he was kept out of service. Admittedly, the Service Rules of the respondent Corporation do not contain any provision dealing with the issue of regularization. 16. In such circumstances, Sri.T.Naveen is justified in contending that a reference has to be made to the provisions of Rule 56A read with Rule 56 of Part I KSR. Rule 56A(2) provides that in situations where an employee is reinstated in service after the enquiry proceedings, the question of regularization, etc., is to be made with reference to provisions of Rule 56(4), (5) and (7). The provisions of Rule 56(5), read as under:- “In a case falling under sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or Compulsory Retirement, as the case may be, 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 purpose.” True, the learned Standing Counsel, Sri.T.Naveen is justified in contending that ultimately, it is for the competent authority to consider as to how the period of regularization is to be treated. 17. However, in the case at hand, the question of making reference to the provisions of Rule 56A read with Rule 56 of the KSR arises only after taking into account the nature of the penalty/punishment imposed on the petitioner. As already noticed, Ext.P18 ultimately only issued a “warning” to the petitioner. 17. However, in the case at hand, the question of making reference to the provisions of Rule 56A read with Rule 56 of the KSR arises only after taking into account the nature of the penalty/punishment imposed on the petitioner. As already noticed, Ext.P18 ultimately only issued a “warning” to the petitioner. In this regard, the Service Rules of the respondent Corporation is a self-contained one with respect to the method of punishment to be imposed. Rule 83 of the Service Rules provides for the penalties/punishment against an employee of the respondent Corporation. Rule 83 speaks about “minor penalties” and “major penalties”. The provisions of Rule 83 do not contain a penalty of “warning”. When that be so, Ext.P18, to the extent of imposing only a punishment of “warning” cannot be considered to be one falling within the scope and ambit of Rule 83 of the Service Rules. 18. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the respondent Corporation is justified in issuing the findings contained in Ext.P18, dehors the ultimate punishment of warning, insofar as the findings rendered against the petitioner prove that he was guilty. He took me through the various findings in the enquiry report also. However, I notice that the enquiry report, which is produced along with the reply afÏdavit filed by the petitioner dated 15.08.2022, in the concluding portion, specifically takes note of the antecedents of the service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent Corporation herein. The fact that the petitioner was continuing to work even without availing the “weekly off” is noticed. The fact that no proceedings were taken against the petitioner from April 2001 till the impugned incident is also noticed. Apart from the afore, the actual reason pointed out by the petitioner and noticed at the beginning of this judgment is also endorsed by the enquiry ofÏcer while finalizing the report at Ext.P24. This Court also notices that the enquiry ofÏcer has obtained the views of the other employees who worked with the petitioner herein and has recorded that the other employees also supported the case put up by the petitioner herein. 19. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ultimate finding in Ext.P18, noticed earlier goes against the mandate of Rule 56(5) of Part I KSR. 20. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 21. 19. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ultimate finding in Ext.P18, noticed earlier goes against the mandate of Rule 56(5) of Part I KSR. 20. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 21. In this connection, I also take note of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Madhavan v. CIT and Others [ 1983 KHC 263 ] , relied on by the learned counsel, Smt.Rekha Vasudevan in support of the contention that insofar as only a warning is issued, the same is not to be treated as a “punishment”. This Court has already found that the so-called punishment cannot be considered to be a punishment under Rule 83 of the Service Rules. 22. Furthermore, I take note of the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel, Smt.Rekha Vasudevan in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others [ (2013) 10 SCC 324 ] wherein the Apex Court has summarized the proposition to be applied in cases of the like nature as under:- “38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are: 38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. ……… 38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion of the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. ……… 38.7. ……… 38.7. The observation made in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.” In the light of the afore, this Court notices that insofar as no penalty, within the meaning of the afore term under Rule 83 of the Service Rules applicable to the 2 nd respondent herein, is seen imposed on the petitioner, the period from 17.01.2009 to 06.07.2013, is also to be considered as duty and regularized. 23. However, the larger question to be considered in the afore circumstances is to the effect that the petitioner has admittedly not worked with the respondent Corporation for the afore period. True, the petitioner cannot be found fault for that. However, insofar as the petitioner has not worked with the respondent Corporation in between the afore dates, I hold that the petitioner is to be paid 50% of the salary payable by the respondent. In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of as under:- i. Ext.P22 order issued by the 1 st respondent is set aside. ii. It is held that the period from 17.01.2009 to 06.07.2013 is to be regularized and reckoned for the purpose of service benefits of the petitioner. iii. However, the petitioner would be only entitled for 50% of the salary payable by the respondent for the afore period. iv. Needless to say that the respondent Corporation to extend the afore, as also carry out the consequential re-fixation within a period of six months.