"18. However, I am in full agreement with the submissions made by Sri G.Ramachander Rao, learned counsel for the respondents that the disciplinary authority has all the power to impose any punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. The power of the disciplinary authority is not in dispute, but the question that arises for consideration is that whether, while imposing minor penalty of censure, the disciplinary authority could have treated the period of suspension as 'not on duty' and further, held that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount over and above what was paid towards subsistence allowance. Censure is a minor punishment something like a warning to be careful in future. In fact, in the Order dated 24.12.1991, it was stated that a lenient view in the matter was taken to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his behaviour and to be careful in his work in future. While holding so, treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty' cannot be said to have been done in good faith and good conscience. The censure itself is a punishment of a minor nature. To treat the period of suspension as not on duty is a severe punishment, by which the petitioner is denied continuity of service for the purpose of seniority, promotion etc. Therefore,though the disciplinary authority has got power, such power, in this case, was not exercised reasonably and no reasonable person could have treated the period of suspension as not on duty while imposing the minor punishment of Censure. "
