JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sri Om Prakash Bindal who was removed from service as a Correspondence Clerk in the employment of the Union of India in the Western Railway, by an order dated December 22, 1978. The removal was on account of proof of misconduct against him while he was posted at Railway Station Achhnera in District Agra. 2. Of the four charges which were levelled against him, the first was that no payment was made to one Khyali Ram, who was employed as substitute amongst Class IV employees, for the month of August, October and November in the year 1974 and April, June and July in the year 1975. Instead, payment was made to some other persons though the amount was drawn for payment to Khyali Ram and witnessed the payment. The second charge was that even though Khyali Ram continuously worked as a substitute from November, 1973 to March 1974 Bindal did not accord temporary status to him in accordance with the Rules. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, after following the prescribed procedure including the recording of oral evidence in the presence of Bindal, submitted a report exonerating Bindal of all the charges. The disciplinary authority, namely, the D.S.O. however, did not agree with the Enquiry Officer in regard to the aforesaid two charges and after discussing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that both of these were fully established and that Bindal deserved to be removed from service on that account. He gave a show cause notice to Bindal proposing that penalty and, after taking into account the reply submitted by him, passed the order of removal. Bindal filed a departmental appeal before Divisional Railway Manager, Jaipur but that too was dismissed by an order of May 10, 1979. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed in this Court. 3. The principal submission of Sri Ravi Kant, appearing for Bindal, has been that neither of the two charges could be levelled against Bindal for under the relevant rules he was not supposed to witness any payment made to a person like Khyali Ram borne on the muster roll nor did he actually do so. 3. The principal submission of Sri Ravi Kant, appearing for Bindal, has been that neither of the two charges could be levelled against Bindal for under the relevant rules he was not supposed to witness any payment made to a person like Khyali Ram borne on the muster roll nor did he actually do so. The entire responsibility in the matter of payment was of the Station Master and if payment was erroneously made to some persons other than Khyali Ram for the months for which it is said to have been so made, he could not be held responsible for it so as to be charged with any misconduct. Likewise, it was not part of his duties to accord temporary status to a substitute and that head of charge also was untenable. 4. Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 provides : "General.-(1) Every railway servant shall at all times- (i) maintain absolute integrity ; (ii) maintain devotion to duty ; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway or Government servant (2) (i) Every railway servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all railway servants for the time being under his control and authority ; (ii) no railway servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible." The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1968 provide for removal fora service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or Railway Administration, as one of the major penalties in Rule 6(viii), Rule 9 of these Rules lays down the elaborate procedure to be followed for imposition of major penalties. Rule 10 provides for the action to be taken on the enquiry report Communication of orders made by the Disciplinary Authority is provided for in Rule 12 while Rules 18 to 23 deal with appeal from such orders 5. Rule 10 provides for the action to be taken on the enquiry report Communication of orders made by the Disciplinary Authority is provided for in Rule 12 while Rules 18 to 23 deal with appeal from such orders 5. In Volume I of the Indian Railway General Code witnessing of payments is dealt with in paragraphs 1680 to 1684. Of those, the relevant paragraphs are 1680, 1682 and 1684 which run thus : "1680. Officers submitting bills for internal check should mention therein the place of payment name of the officer or subordinate before whom payment should be made It should, however, be ensured that the staff that prepare a particular bill are not nominated to witness payments for the same bill and that, as far as possible, the staff nominated for the purpose are other than the staff of the Bills Section. 1682. When an officer or subordinate named in a bill to witness payment thereof is from some cause or other unable to witness the payment he should authorise the disbursing pay clerk in writing to pay the bill in the presence of the person (who must be a railway servant) he wishes to depute for the purpose. This authority will be attached by the pay clerk to the bill concerned. 1684. Witnessing officers and subordinates are responsible for the identity of their men and for the correct payment of the amount entered in their favour in the bill." 6. The Manual of the Cash and Pay Office of the Western Railway 1958 Edition mentions the payment procedure in Chapter III In it paragraph 302(c) lays down that - "Pay Clerks should insist that Witnessing Officials should be present during the entire course of payment. No payment should be made in the absence of the Witnessing Official. However, if it becomes necessary for the Witnessing Official to be absent from the pay-table for any reason whatsoever, the payment should be suspended during his absence. No payment should be made in the absence of the Witnessing Official. However, if it becomes necessary for the Witnessing Official to be absent from the pay-table for any reason whatsoever, the payment should be suspended during his absence. If in an emergency the Witnessing Official after commencing the payment is unable to complete it, he must certify all the payments witnessed by him, and make arrangements with the authorities for another suitable witness to continue." Paragraph 303 lays down that : "Officers submitting bills are required to mention therein the number of district Pay Clerk, the place of payment, the name and designation of the Official before whom the payment will be made." Then it is provided in Paragraph 307 that the Witnessing Officer will be responsible for the identity of the men paid in his presence and for correct payment of the amounts entered in their favour in bills. 7. Paragraph 306 (a) of the Manual deals with arrangements to be made where an officer or subordinate named in a bill as a witness is for some reason unable to attend the payment. It is also provided that if an Officer or subordinate named in a bill to witness payment be unable to depute another, the disbursing pay clerk will not pay the bill except on the written authority of the Officer signing the bill or of one of his assistants who must be a Gazetted Officer. 8. The plea, founded upon the rules relating to payments, has been that Bindal could not be made a Witnessing Officer as the responsibility for witnessing the payment was upon the Station Master and also for the reason that the Disciplinary Authority recorded a finding that it was Bindal, the Correspondence Clerk, who had prepared the paysheets himself. 9. It is not necessary to pronounce upon the correctness of the submission that the responsibility for witnessing the payments made to substitute under the Rules was of the Station Master or as suggested during the submissions, of the Assistant Station Master and not of Bindal who was the Correspondence Clerk attached to the Station Master. 9. It is not necessary to pronounce upon the correctness of the submission that the responsibility for witnessing the payments made to substitute under the Rules was of the Station Master or as suggested during the submissions, of the Assistant Station Master and not of Bindal who was the Correspondence Clerk attached to the Station Master. Assuming that the rules did not contemplate appointment of a Correspondence Clerk, who himself prepared the pay sheets, as a Witnessing Officer for the payments, the fact remains that it has concurrently been found by the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority that it was Bindal who actually identified people for payment during the relevant period and that payment meant for Khyali Ram was made to some other persons upon his identification. The question is can, in these circumstances, it be said that Bindal was guilty of a misconduct rendering himself liable to removal from service. 10. It has been urged that even the authorities have not found that Bindal identified wrong persons as Khyali Ram, while witnessing payments for the months in question for any ulterior gain or that he actually derived such a gain. As such, the action of Bindal could at best amount to inadvertance or negligence on his part in witnessing the payment and not a misconduct. Reliance was placed, in support of this submission, upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Management of Presidency Talkies v. N.S. Natarajan, AIR 1969 Mad. 121 in which it was observed in paragraph 6 that : "Now 'misconduct' is a specific word, with a specific connotation. The learned counsel for the employer organisation himself concedes that it cannot be mere inefficiency or slackness. It is something for more positive, and certainly, deliberate disobedience of any order of a superior authority will be one species of misconduct. But the point here, as stressed by Venkatadri, J. is that there was no misconduct of any kind on the part of the employee, even if the management took the view that he was not as diligent in the performance of his duties at that time, as he might have been. The Representation of the picture owners was not a person in authority over this employee in any sense. The Representation of the picture owners was not a person in authority over this employee in any sense. He was merely a third party who, no doubt, had an interest in seeing that the tickets were not sold in the black market, or issued freely without collection of the fee. It may be that the representative made this suggestion, in good faith, because he was interested in seeing that there was the maximum sale of tickets at the Ladies Counter. But equally, the employee might have made his own judgment of the situation, and felt that if he engaged himself in that duty in those circumstances, shortage of cash might occur, which will lead to future embarrassment and loss to the management. Even if the judgment was not a correct one, this is not misconduct in any specific sense, or by any stretch of imagination," 11. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Union of India v. J. Ahmad, 1979 S.L.J. 308, particularly upon those observations contained in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the judgment in which it has been said that failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion of duty and further that the shortcomings in the personal capacity of degree of efficiency which may be relevant consideration on the question of retaining him in the post of promotion cannot constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against an employee. 12. There can be hardly any doubt that an order of judgment or some shortcoming in the personal capacity or degree of efficiency of an employee may, by itself, not normally amount to misconduct but then if the servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it would amount to a misconduct. Likewise, a gross or habitual negligence in performance of duty even without a guilty mind and not involving mens rea may still constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. This is what the Supreme Court itself recognised in the case of J. Ahmad. 13. The finding recorded by the authorities against Bindal is that in respect of payment for several months, he identified wrong persons as Khyali Ram for payment. This is what the Supreme Court itself recognised in the case of J. Ahmad. 13. The finding recorded by the authorities against Bindal is that in respect of payment for several months, he identified wrong persons as Khyali Ram for payment. Without anything more, such action would be gross or habitual negligence on Bindal's part. The negligence, assuming it was a mere negligence on the part of Bindal, was such which clearly betrayed a failure on his part to maintain absolute devotion to duty within the meaning of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules. After all, devotion to duty implies due care on the part of the employee in performance of the work assigned to him. A disciplinary action against Bindal, in the circumstances found established in the case, cannot be treated to be arbitrary so as lo result in its invalidation when tested with reference to the observations contained in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1628 on which stress was laid by the counsel for Bindal. The petitioner overlooks that he is seeking redress from this Court in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where, as in the present case, it is found that the petitioner has not been acting with the amount of care with which he should in performing the work assigned to him, albeit by practice prevailing in the Western Railway, and has, thus been instrumental in depriving Khyali Ram, the rightful claimant of the amount due to him, this Court would decline to come to his aid by interposing relief in his favour. 14. As far as the second charge is concerned, Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the Western Railway, has very fairly stated that in the absence of proof of the fact that the duty to accord temporary status to substitute was assigned to Bindal, his failure to do so in the case of Khyali Ram r/nay not amount to a misconduct on his part so as to entail disciplinary proceedings. As such, it is not necessary for me to go into it. As such, it is not necessary for me to go into it. But then, as rightly urged by Sri Sinha proof of one charge alone would be sufficient to uphold the decision taken by the authorities against Bindal as ruled by the Supreme Court in Railway Board, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 966 . 15. By way of subsidiary submissions, it was urged by the counsel for Bindal that the written brief having been called for from Bindal in terms of Rule 9 (16) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the failure of the punishing authority to consider the same invalidated the orders From a perusal of the appellate order, however, it appears that it has been found that it was not proved that any such brief was submitted by Bindal and; in any case, lie had an opportunity of raising all the points mentioned in the written brief even at the stage of the filing of the show cause notice. Likewise, the submission about non-consideration of the evidence of defence witnesses who appeared for Bindal is difficult to accept for a perusal of the orders, both of the punishing as well as the appellate authorities, would show that the evidence was considered by them. In fact, while dealing with paragraphs II to 18 of the memorandum of appeal, the appellate authority has specifically mentioned in his order that the record revealed that all evidence had been carefully considered and further that he had also considered all the evidence, including the statement of defence witnesses, himself. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement particularly when the authority while dealing with the contentions of Bindal in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the memorandum of appeal, has clearly referred to the fact that he was not prepared to accept the version given by the defence witnesses in view of the evidence of persons produced as witnesses by the Railway. 16 In conclusion, I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court with the order of his removal. The petition fails and is dismissed though the parties are left to bear their own costs.