The submission which was urged before the Learned Single Judge was that denial of arrears of salary to the first respondent was illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that no such punishment was prescribed under the rules and in the garb of reducing the punishment arrears of salary could not have been denied. The Learned Single Judge observed that the Appellate Authority did not find the order of dismissal to be correct and consequently directed reinstatement. According to the Learned Single Judge the denial of back wages was a punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority and since the rules do not provide for imposition of such a punishment the order was contrary to the statutory rules and hence a nullity. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge is based on a patent misreading of the order passed by the Learned Administrative Judge as Appellate Authority. It has been urged that denial of back wages in the present case was not imposed by the Learned Single Judge as a punishment. The Learned Administrative Judge held that this was fit and proper case for reducing the extreme penalty imposed upon the first respondent on humanitarian grounds and consequently directed reinstatement. However, back wages were denied not by way of punishment but for the reason that while ordering reinstatement an order has necessarily to be passed in terms of the financial handbook in regard to the pay and allowances payable to a Government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal. On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the first respondent that if the order of the Administrative Judge is properly construed it would appear that the Appellate Authority had arrived at a finding that the charge of misconduct was not proved and once a charge of misconduct was held not to have been proved the first respondent was entitled to reinstatement and a consequential order of back wages was necessary. There being no statutory penalty of reducing the quantum of back wages the Learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Learned Administrative Judge and ordering full back wages. The judgment of the Learned Single Judge would indicate that the only submission which was urged by the first respondent at the hearing of the petition was that denial of arrears of salary to the first respondent was without jurisdiction since no such punishment is prescribed under the rules and in the garb of reducing the punishment arrears of salary could not have been denied. This is the only ground which weighed with the Learned Single Judge because the impugned judgment proceeds to hold that the denial of back wages is not one of the prescribed penalties and hence cannot be imposed by way of a punishment. There is a fundamental fallacy in the submission which was urged before the Learned Single Judge and which found acceptance in the impugned order. Submit