Judgment :- The petitioner is a retired Sales Tax Officer. He retired from service on 31-8-1987. He is aggrieved by Exts. P 11 and P12 orders passed by respondents 1 and 4 respectively by which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was withheld from the D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner. 2. Facts: The petitioner joined service in 1958 as L.D. Clerk. Eventually he was promoted as Agrl. Income Tax Officer, Vythiri and took charge as such on 28-1-1980. In Vythiri, he continued up to 15-12-1982. The petitioner was transferred as Sales Tax Officer (Audit), Kozhikode on 4-5-1984. During his tenure at Kozhikode an inspection of his office was conducted by the second respondent on 18-6-1984 which was followed by a detailed inspection. Consequent on certain irregularities detected at the time of inspection the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext. P1 order of the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted Ext. P2 representation before the first respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that no action was taken on Ext. P2 representation by the first respondent. It is the petitioner's case that he was served with Ext. P3 memo containing five charges against him. The charges are as follows: i) Failure to collect the target fixed for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84; ii) Failure to collect admitted tax along with the returns from the assessment year 1980-81 thereby enabling the assessee to postpone payment of the admitted tax indefinitely; iii) Failure to take coercive action for the collection of pending arrears in regard to certain major cases which resulted in the non-realisation of arrears in the proper time. iv) Failure to complete the assessments in certain cases till he left the office on transfer even though the accounts were checked as early as in 1981. v) Showing undue discrimination and harassment towards certain assesses which were quite unbecoming of Government servant. On receipt of Ext. P3 memo of charges the petitioner filed Ext. P4 explanation denying the same. Ext. P5 is the resolution passed by the Agrl. Income tax Officers Association to the effect that the petitioner has been victimised by being served with the memo of charges. The petitioner submits that even though the memo of charges was served and explanation was furnished, nothing happened thereafter for a long period and that after a lapse of 11/2 years the petitioner was served with another memo of charges evidenced by Ext. The petitioner submits that even though the memo of charges was served and explanation was furnished, nothing happened thereafter for a long period and that after a lapse of 11/2 years the petitioner was served with another memo of charges evidenced by Ext. P7 by which the petitioner was asked to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under K.C.S.(CC & a) Rules should not be taken against him. Ext. P8 is the reply furnished by the petitioner to Ext. P7 memo of charges. In the meantime the petitioner was reinstated in service on 1-4-1985. He submitted Ext. P9 representation dated 10-1-1987 to the Minister for Finance requesting the Minister to include the petitioner's name also in the select list for promotion to the post of Asst. Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax and Sales tax. Ext. P10 is the reply from the 4th respondent stating that the enquiry pending against him will be completed as expeditiously. Thereafter, the petitioner received Ext. P11 order of the first respondent No. A5.51050/84 Tax dated 18-7-1987 ordering recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/-from the D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext. P11 order of the first respondent the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent as per Ext. P12 order G.O.Rt.No. 57/88/TD dated 6-2-1988 rejected the appeal confirming Ext. P11 order passed by the first respondent. In this Original Petition the challenge is directed against Exts. P11 and P12 orders passed by respondents 1 and 4 respectively. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Original Petition. 4. The charges mentioned in Ext. P7 are: (1) The petitioner failed to revise the assessment of one Smt. Lakshmikutty for the year 1978-79; (2) The petitioner failed to mark a copy of the revised assessment order in respect of one K.P. Kunhiraman Nair to the Sales tax Officer, Vythiri; and (3) The petitioner completed the assessment for the year 1977-78 relating to one M.K. Ramakrishnan without considering the turnover involved in the crime file No. TCR 194/78-79 forwarded by the Intelligence Officer, Kozhikode which resulted in loss of revenue to the State to the tune of Rs. 381.68. 5. 381.68. 5. The question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether the petitioner has committed any misconduct as enumerated in the Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules warranting disciplinary action as contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1960. Having perused the "charges" levelled against the petitioner as per Exts. P3 and P7, I am of the view that they do not constitute misconduct as that expression is normally understood in legal parlance. At best they may amount to official lapses or inefficiency or incapacity on the part of the petitioner; but then it has to be remembered that every such lapse or inefficiency or incapacity cannot be dubbed as misconduct. In order to saddle a civil servant with a penalty under the service Rules for the commission of a misconduct, it is necessary that the act complained of should amount to a misconduct so that any expogt facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as a misconduct exposing the civil servant concerned to the uncertainties of subjective evaluation by their masters depending upon the latter's whim and fancy. In other words, misconduct has to be defined with precision as far as possible and the Government shall not have the freedom to brand a particular activities as misconduct dehors the conduct rules and then proceed against the Govt. servant thereby fishing out misconduct where non-existed which cannot be countenanced. In this connection, one cannot lose sight of the fact that penal action under the disciplinary rules is not the sole remedy and universal panacia for all acts and omissions of inefficiency on the part of a Govt. servant. There arc other means also recourse to which can be had by the Government to maintain efficiency and discipline in the department, without adopting the penal provisions of the disciplinary rules. For example, a civil servant who is chronically inefficient in discharging his duties may be denied his promotion; he can be shifted to another place or he may be given less onerous duties and so on and so forth. To have recourse to disciplinary action under the drop of a hat in the pretext of inefficiency will definitely have a demoralising effect not only on the particular officer concerned who is proceeded against but also on the entire official fraternity as is evident from Ext. To have recourse to disciplinary action under the drop of a hat in the pretext of inefficiency will definitely have a demoralising effect not only on the particular officer concerned who is proceeded against but also on the entire official fraternity as is evident from Ext. P5 which is a memorandum submitted to the Government by the Kerala State Agrl. Income-tax and Sales-tax Gazetted Officers' Association requesting the Government to cancel the order of suspension passed against the petitioner as according to them, there is no serious charges justifying suspension and the charges levelled against the petitioner arc only common defects in every office of the department and that too due to heavy work load of the officers far in excess of the norms in the office. 6. The question is no longer res-integra. The Supreme Court in A.L. Karhi v. P & TCorporation of India Ltd. (1984 Labour & Industrial Cases 961) had to consider the legality of removal from service of an employee of Project & Equipment Corporation"' of India Ltd. on the alleged misconduct not falling under any of the misconduct specifically enumerated in Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1975. The Supreme Court held as follows: "What in a given context would constitute conduct unbecoming of a public servant to be treated as misconduct would expose a grey area not am enable to objective evaluation. Where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any expost facto interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct." In Union of India v. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979 SC 1022) the Supreme Court considered the question whether lack of efficiency and failure to attain highest standards of administrative ability would constitute misconduct. Answering the question in the negative, the Supreme Court held that lack of efficiency and failure to attain highest standards of administrative ability while holding a post would not themselves constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. In para.11 the court observed as follows: "It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. In para.11 the court observed as follows: "It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high" 7. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that they do not constitute misconduct warranting disciplinary proceedings. Though they may be relevant on the question of retaining him in the very same post or for promotion, but such lapses cannot constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. 8. In the result, the Original Petition is allowed. Exts. P11 and P12 are quashed. There shall be a direction to respondents 1 and 4 to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,000/- being the amount withheld from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity due to the petitioner. The said sum of Rs. 1,000/- shall bear interest at 18% from the date of withholding to the date of refund. Original Petition is alleged as above. However, I make no order as to costs.