10. The present cases are of un-recorded warning. Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. L.A. Qureshi ((1998) 9 SCC 261) which was a case of censure which is theminor most penalty has not agreed with the submission of the counsel for the "employee that censure is only a recorded warning and does not constitute punishment. They have further held that censure cannot be equated with warning. In this case also, it has been held that warning is not penalty under the Rules. Paras 7 and 8 of the judgment are as follows:
"7. The submission of Shri Khanduja is that "censure" is only a recorded warning and does not constitute punishment and, therefore, the directions contained in the circular in relation to imposition of minor penalty would not apply and the Tribunal was justified in giving the directions for opening of the sealed cover and for giving effect to the recommendations of the DPC.
8. We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Khanduja. "Censure" cannot be equated with a warning since under Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, "censure" is one of the minor penalties that can be imposed on a Government servant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the penalty of censure which was imposed on the respondent in the departmental proceedings was not a penalty as contemplated in the circular dated 2-5-1990. Once it is held that a minor penalty has been imposed on the respondent in the departmental proceedings, the direction given in the said circular would be applicable and the sealed cover contain-;ing recommendations of the DPC could not be opened and the recommendations of the DPC could not be given effect because the respondent has not been fully exonerated and a minor penalty has been imposed. The respondent can only be considered for pro motion on prospective basis from a date after the conclusion of the departmental pro ceedings."
(Emphasis supplied)
