JUDGMENT M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - While posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police of Allahabad Cantonment Police Station the appellant was entrusted with the investigation case crime No. 45 of 1987 registered under S. 279, 337 and 427 of the Penal Code. On impletion of investigation he submitted a charge-sheet against one person relying on his concession made to and recorded by him. The appellant was thereafter asked to show cause why a misconduct entry should not be made in his character-roll for having submitted charge-sheet solely on the basis of the confession, which was not admissible in evidence. As the cause shown by him was found unsatisfactory, the Superintendent of Police (City). Allahabad made the following misconduct entry in his-character-roll : 1990 tc lg m0fu0 o"kZ 1987&88 esa Fkkuk dsUnz] tuin bykgkckn esa fu;qDr Fks] iq0v0la0 43@87 /kkjk 279@337@437 Hkk0n0fo0 dh foospuk blds }kjk fnukad 21&5&87 dks izkjEHk dh x;hA nkSjku foospuk blds }kjk thi ,oa vfHk;qDr dks dCts iqfyl fy;k vkSj dsoy vfHk;qDr ls bDckfy;k c;ku dks gh i;kZIr lk{; le> fof/kd ewY; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr dqN Hkh ugh gS] tks bldh ykijokgh] vdeZ.rkZ ,oa mnklhurk dk izfrd gS] ftldh dM+h HkRlZuk dh tkrh gSA Aggrieved thereby he filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. A revisional application filed thereafter also met with the same fate. Thereafter he filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of this Court which was also dismissed in limine. Hence this special appeal at his instance. 2. The only point that was ureged in support of the appeal was that even if the allegation made against the appellant was accepted as true it could and did not amount to `misconduct' under Regulation 478 of the U.P. Police Regulations (`Regulations' for short) so as to justify an adverse entry to that effect in his character roll. 3. Regulation 478, to the extent it is relevant for our present purposes, reads as under : "478. All Police Officers appointed under S. 2 of the Police Act are liable to the following departmental punishments - (a) to (bb) .............................. (be) misconduct entry in the character-roll; ............................." 4. As admittedly, the appellant is to be governed by the above Regulation. Regulation 478, to the extent it is relevant for our present purposes, reads as under : "478. All Police Officers appointed under S. 2 of the Police Act are liable to the following departmental punishments - (a) to (bb) .............................. (be) misconduct entry in the character-roll; ............................." 4. As admittedly, the appellant is to be governed by the above Regulation. the only question that seeks an answer in this appeal is whether the appellant by submitting charge sheet against an accused solely relying upon his confession before him committed a `misconduct' within the meaning of the above Regulation. 5. According to the Superintendent of Police, who made the impugned misconduct entry, the appellant should have known that a confession before a Police Officer has no value under the Evidence Act and therefore submission of the charge-sheet by the appellant on the basis of such confession was indicative of his carelessness, inactivity and negligence of duty. From the order of the Inspector General of Police, who disposed of the revision petition filed by the appellant against the entry made by the Superintendent of Police, we find that he arrived at the following conclusion in dismissing the revision petition : "In the revision petition, the main contentions are that since none had seen the accused, there was no occasion for identification. This may he correct, but submission of charge sheet on the basis of confession of the accused before the police, which was legally no evidence, was certainly objectionable. If there was no evidence in the case, the petitioner ought to have sought legal opinion from the prosecution branch, but he did nothing. His further contention that Station Officer and Circle Officer did not guide him, does not help him much. The petitioner was I.O. of the case and Prosecution Branch was there to advise him." 6. In absence of any definition of `misconduct' in the Regulations we may justifiably refer to its dictionary meaning. `Misconduct' has been defined in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary as under :- "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgments, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct." In our considered view, from the very nature of definition of `misconduct' it is difficult to hold that lack of efficiency, failure to attain high standard of administrative ability. lack of foresight. lack of foresight. error of judgment, indifference or ignorance of basic requirements of law which the officer is supposed to deal with, ipso facto, amounts to a misconduct, unless of course it is found that he was acting with oblique or ill motive. Then again, a single culpable act or omission on the part of an officer would not, ordinarily, constitute a misconduct' unless it results in serious consequences. For example, if a Railwayman entrusted with the duty of manning a Railway Leavel crossing on a public road neglects to close the gate when the train is approaching which results in a disaster, his omission would amount to a misconduct regard being had to the nature of duty to be performed. 7. When judged in the context of the above principles, it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant has, by submitting the charge-sheet solely on the basis of a confession made before him, demonstrated inappropriate levity to duty and ignorance of basic of Evidence Act; but considering the nature of the offences involved in the charge-sheet and other surrounding circumstances it cannot he said that he has committed a `misconduct'. We. therefore, allow the appeal and the writ petition and quash the impugned misconduct entry in the character roll of the appellant.