M. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner, who was an employee of Canara Bank ('bank' for short) challenges the order of his dismissal from service. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are as under : ( 2 ) IN May, 1984 while working as an Accountant of the Brabourne Road Branch of the Bank in Calcutta, the petitioner fixed up a quarter at 9, R. N. Das Road, Dhakuria, Calcutta-31 on Bank's lease for three years, with an option of renewal for a further period of one year. Just before the extended period of lease expired-- on April 22, 1988 to be precise - the lessor informed the Bank that she was not willing to extend the period of lease any further. On receipt thereof, the Bank, by a letter dated June 29, 1988 intimated the petitioner that a flat at 10, Gariahata Road, Calcutta had been allotted to him. In reply thereto, the petitioner, by his letter dated July 8, 1988, informed the Bank that compared with the flat he was occupying at R. N. Das Road, the fiat offered to him was too small to accommodate the ten members of his family. He, therefore, requested the Bank to allot him a more spacious quarter or to prevail upon the lessor of the flat, he was occupying, to extend the period of lease. Thereafter, on August 25, 1988, the Bank wrote a letter to the petitioner requesting him to vacate the quarter as the lessor had served a notice upon it for vacating the same and asking him to occupy a flat at 74a, Purnadas Road, Calcutta, which was being offered to him, within a month. In that letter, the petitioner was told that if the above quarter was not suitable to him, he might fix up a suitable quarter as per norms of the Bank after obtaining its prior permission. He was further told that if he did not vacate the flat within the time stipulated, he would be solely responsible for all the consequences thereof. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that in that letter, the Bank also alleged that the petitioner had refused to occupy a number of flats offered to him. He was further told that if he did not vacate the flat within the time stipulated, he would be solely responsible for all the consequences thereof. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that in that letter, the Bank also alleged that the petitioner had refused to occupy a number of flats offered to him. ( 3 ) THE petitioner wrote back to say that all his refusals were backed up by specific reason, namely shortage of space and pointed out that while the quarter he was occupying, had an area of approximately 900 sq. ft. none of the quarters offered by the Bank had even an area of 450 sq. ft. He, therefore, requested the Bank to accord him permission to engage a broker to enable him to fix up a quarter. In reply thereto, the Bank, in its letter dated September 21, 1988 drew the attention of the petitioner to its Premises Manual containing the specification of the accommodations available to the Officers of the petitioner's class and the norms regarding engagement of a broker, and instructed him to fix up a quarter, in terms thereof within twenty days from the date of receipt of the letter. He was also told that he would be held personally responsible for any possible action of the lessor against the Bank for getting the quarter vacated. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, a chargesheet dated November 5, 1988 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that inspite of repeated instructions, he had failed to vacate the quarter at R. N. Das Road, Calcutta for which the lease period had already expired and thereby showed utter disregard to the lawful and reasonable orders issued by the Bank. It was, further alleged therein that the petitioner's unauthorised occupation had resulted in an embarrassing position for the Bank, besides causing irreparable damage to the image of the Bank. The other allegation was that by his above action, he had acted in a manner which was unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank. According to the chargesheet, the petitioner had contravened Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, and thereby committed a misconduct, punishable under the provisions of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976. According to the chargesheet, the petitioner had contravened Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, and thereby committed a misconduct, punishable under the provisions of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976. A departmental inquiry was thereafter held into the chargesheet and in its report, the Inquiring Authority recorded its findings as follows: -"i have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the charge against Mr. Debasis Das :-- (i) failure to protect and ensure interests of the Bank, and (ii) acted in a manner unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank, which are prejudicial to the interests of the Bank have been proved. Hence, I hold him guilty of charges contained in the charge-sheet. "agreeing therewith, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank dismissed the petitioner. Hence this writ petition at his instance. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Ganguly, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, it will be necessary to look into relevant Regulations. Regulation 3 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 ('conduct Regulations' for short), reads as under:"3. General (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all possible to ensure and protect the interests of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do no which is unbecoming of a bank officer. (2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons in all transactions and negotiations. (3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. Every officer employee shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his control and authority. "regulations 4 to 23 thereof lay down specific duties and obligations of a Bank officer and Regulation 24 says that breach of any of the provision of the Regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. "regulations 4 to 23 thereof lay down specific duties and obligations of a Bank officer and Regulation 24 says that breach of any of the provision of the Regulations shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. ( 6 ) CONFINING his case to the earlier quoted findings of the Inquiring Authority and, for that matter, of the Disciplinary Authority, as it only agreed with the same, and by referring to Regulation 3 (1) of the Conduct Regulations, Mr. Ganguly submitted that the provisions thereof had not defined the steps an Officer of the Bank were required to take to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank nor did it spell out his omissions and commissions from which a legitimate inference could be drawn that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Absence thereof, Mr. Ganguly submitted, gave the Disciplinary Authority unbridled power and absolute discretion to proceed against an Officer on subjective assessment, which was legally impermissible. To buttress his submission, he relied upon the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. L. Kalra v. P and E Corporation of India Ltd. , reported in AIR 1984 SC 1361 :-" ??. . what is unbecoming of a public servant may vary with individuals and expose employees to vagaries of subjective evaluation. What in a given context would constitute a conduct unbecoming of a public servant to be treated as misconduct would expose a grey area not amenable to the objective evaluation. Where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and, if necessary, define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct. " ( 7 ) MR. Ganguly next contended that the Impugned chargesheet was based solely on the accusation that the petitioner did not vacate the quarter allotted to him and if the accusation was accepted even on its face value- without considering the petitioner's defence- it might at best be said that he had wilfully disregarded a lawful order. But then, Mr. Ganguly submitted, that there was no reference to nor reliance upon any Regulations. But then, Mr. Ganguly submitted, that there was no reference to nor reliance upon any Regulations. Circular or Order in the chargesheet, the report of the Inquiring Authority or the impugned order which made wilful disobedience of a lawful order a misconduct. ( 8 ) IN combating the above contentions, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate appearing for the Bank submitted that the above-quoted observations of the Supreme Court had no manner of application to the facts of the instant case, as the Rule relating to maintenance of absolute integrity an conduct unbecoming of a public servant referred to therein; did not constitute a misconduct and in support of his contention, he relied upon the following passage from the self-same judgment in the case of Kalra (supra) :-"rule 4 styled as 'general' specified a norm of behaviour but does not specify that its violation will constitute misconduct. In Rule 5, it is nowhere stated that anything violative of Rule 4 would be per se a misconduct in any of the Sub-clauses of Rule 5, which specifies misconduct. It would, therefore, appear that even if the facts alleged in the two heads of charges are accepted as wholly proved yet that would not constitute misconduct as prescribed in Rule 5 and no penalty can be imposed for such conduct. " ( 9 ) MR. Chakraborty submitted that in the instant case, unlike the above case, the deeming provision of Regulation 24 made breach of Regulation 3 (1) a misconduct and therefore, it must be said that the petitioner had been legally proceeded against. ( 10 ) HAVING carefully gone through the entire judgment in the case of Kalra (supra) and applying the same in the facts of the instant case, I an unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chakraborty. The observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalra (supra) that where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and, if necessary, define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct, is one of general application for, if that is not so done a public servant may be exposed to vagaries of subjective evaluation as pointed out by the Supreme Court in that case. That the Bank is also conscious of the above proposition is evident from the fact that after framing Regulation 3 under the heading 'general' it has, in Regulations 4 to 23, specified with precision and accuracy, duties and obligations of its officers, breach of which will amount to a misconduct under Regulation 24. From a careful perusal of the Regulations 4 to 23, it is evident that for breach of any of them, an inference can be legitimately drawn that an Officer has not taken all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank and/ or has not discharged his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and/ or had done something, which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer and thereby has committed a breach of Regulation 3 (1) also. For example; Regulation 4, which comes under the heading "observance of Secrecy" provides, inter alia, that every Bank Officer shall maintain strictest secrecy regarding the Bank's affairs and therefore, needless to say, breach of the above Regulation amounts to breach of all the three norms laid down under Regulation 3 (1 ). To cite another example: Regulation 12, comes under the heading "seeking to influence" and it says that no Officer shall try to influence either politically or otherwise his superiors to further his own interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Bank. By committing breach of the above provision, it can be certainly said that the concerned Officer has not acted with utmost integrity and/or has displayed a conduct unbecoming of a Bank Officer, two of the norms laid down in Regulation 3 (1 ). ( 11 ) FROM the above discussion, it follows therefore, that if Regulation 3 (1) has to be treated as an independent provision, breach of which will amount to a 'misconduct' by the deeming provision of Regulation 24, there was no need to frame Regulations 4 to 23. That apart, if read in isolation, the above Regulation will suffer from the indefensible attack of laying down certain norms, without laying down any objective criteria, for its assessment or evaluation. That apart, if read in isolation, the above Regulation will suffer from the indefensible attack of laying down certain norms, without laying down any objective criteria, for its assessment or evaluation. I am, therefore, of the opinion that when Regulation 24 says "a breach of any of the provisions of these Regulations shall be deemed to constitute misconduct", it does not and cannot mean and include Regulation 3 (1), and for that matter, any other clause of Regulation 3. In forming this opinion, I have drawn sustenance from, apart from the foregoing discussion, the nature of the contents of clauses (2) and (3) of the Regulation 3, which have been earlier quoted. As has been noticed, Clause (3) of Regulation 3, asks the Officer to act according to his best Judgment except when acting under the direction of his official superior. Now, can an Officer be said to have violated the above Regulation and thereby committed a 'misconduct' if the Disciplinary Authority, in its 'judgment' feels that the concerned Officer has made an error in his 'judgement'? The answer must be an emphatic no, for an error of judgment cannot be culpable. ( 12 ) IN my view, any other interpretation would mean that an Officer of the Bank may be departmentally proceeded against on the ground that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer for dishonour of a cheque issued by him in liquidation of personal debts, if the Disciplinary Authority feels that such a conduct of the concerned Officer belies its moral, and ethical expectation. Such an assessment would be purely subjective and would vary with individuals. While on this point, a reference, by way of illustration, may be made to Regulation 6 (1) of the Conduct Regulations, which provides that no Officer shall, except with the previous sanction of the Bank engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or under- take other employment. Breach of the above Regulation can be proved by objective standards only and there is no scope of subjective evaluation in deciding the same. It is of course true that if wilful disobedience of a lawful order amounts to misconduct, it can be objectively evaluated and assessed but then the authority concerned has not taken recourse to nor referred to any Regulation to indicate that it is a misconduct. ( 13 ) IT was, however, contended by Mr. It is of course true that if wilful disobedience of a lawful order amounts to misconduct, it can be objectively evaluated and assessed but then the authority concerned has not taken recourse to nor referred to any Regulation to indicate that it is a misconduct. ( 13 ) IT was, however, contended by Mr. Chakraborty that the conclusion of the Inquiring Authority that the petitioner had failed to protect and ensure the interests of the Bank had been amply proved by the fact that he had refused to vacate the quarter which was leased out to the Bank. But, as has been pointed out earlier, refusal to vacate the quarter allotted by the Bank has not been made the subject matter of any of the specific Regulations nor has been referred to anywhere in the chargesheet. Then again, I find that the above conclusion has been reached by the Inquiring Authority. on the basis of the following observations: "his (petitioner) actions are most unbecoming of a Bank Officer and shall certainly affect the image, interest and reputation of the Bank in the eyes of the public". ( 14 ) THE above-quoted inference is purely subjective, and also presumptive in nature. Besides, Mr. Chakraborty in his usual fairness conceded that he could not support the finding of the Inquiring Authority that image, interest and reputation of the Bank had been affected in the eyes of the public (Emphasis supplied ). ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing discussions, I allow this petition and set the impugned order of dismissal. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.