S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition, is as to whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing the charge memo. ( 2 ) THE impugned charge memo dated 31-1-2000 reads thus:- "that the said Shri G Buddappa, while working as APMG (SB), Circle Office, Hyderabad during the period from 22-6-1995 to 17-8-1998, functioned as question paper setter and Examiner in respect of Paper c (dictation from Telugu and English Pieces) of the Postman Examination from amongst EDAS and Group d officials in respect of Hyderabad region, held on 25-5-1997. During the said period, Shri Buddappa evaluated the answer scripts of the aforesaid Postman Examination in a faulty and indiscreet manner and without following uniform standard in awarding marks to all candidates of Hanamkonda, Sangareddy and Warangal Divisions, leading to the cancellation of the examination in respect of Paper c of Hanamkonda Dn. and selection of undeserving candidates as Postman in respect of Sangareddy Dn. It is therefore, alleged that the said Shri G. Buddappa, by his aforesaid acts, failed to maintain absolute integrity, showed lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i), 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (i) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. " the learned Tribunal observed: "in the instant case what we gather from the allegations of imputations is that the applicant, was not consistent in his evaluation. At the most, it could be inferred that he was negligent in the performance of his function as Evaluator. It was no where stated that the applicant has favoured any candidate. Learned Counsel for the respondent however seeks to rely to contend that he acted with ill motive and an allegation was also made to that effect. We see no force in the contention. Mere statement that he has evaluated the papers will ill motive would not suffice. There must be sufficient basis or material or the allegation should disclose bad conduct of some sort of ill-motive on the part of the applicant. By these categorizing a person a bad one, he will not become a bad person". Mere statement that he has evaluated the papers will ill motive would not suffice. There must be sufficient basis or material or the allegation should disclose bad conduct of some sort of ill-motive on the part of the applicant. By these categorizing a person a bad one, he will not become a bad person". ( 3 ) IN support of the aforementioned findings, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Veerendra Prasad v. Union of India, 1986 LAB. IC 1965. ( 4 ) IN the aforementioned decision in J. Ahmed (supra) it has been: "code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates that conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (See Pearce v. Foster) (1886) 17 QBD 536 at p. 542 ). . . . 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 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 may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. . . But in any case, 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 to duty. The High Court was of the opinion that misconduct in the context of disciplinary proceeding means misbehaviour involving some form of guilty mind or mem rea. The High Court was of the opinion that misconduct in the context of disciplinary proceeding means misbehaviour involving some form of guilty mind or mem rea. We find it difficult to subscribe to this view because gross or habitual negligence in performance of duty may not involve mens rea but may still constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings". In Veerendra Prasad (supra), it has been held: "the word "misconduct" is of very wide ampitude and meaning "misconduct" in common parlance means bad conduct and som sort of an ill motive or bad motive is an essential ingredient in imputing misconduct on to an individual. In my view, mere error of judgment or a mere negligent way of dealing in the matter cannot be itself be termed to be misconduct. It must be, coupled with such other act or acts by which motive would be apparent either expressly or even be inferred by implication. Habitual acts of negligence however can be termed to be a misconduct and gross negligence also falls within the same category. In order to bring home the charge of misconduct in justification of issuance of a charge sheet within the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Ahmed s case (1979 Lab. IC 792 (supra)". 2002 Supp. (I) FRF-12 ( 5 ) A bare perusal of the aforementioned decisions leave no manner of doubt that the definition of misconduct cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It varies from situation to situation. A mere negligence by itself may not be a misconduct, unless it is held that the negligence was such, which was not expected of an Officer holding a particular post. Care and caution required to be taken in transacting a business could also depend upon the post held by the delinquent employee. The respondent herein was an Examiner. The charge against him is that he evaluated answer scripts in a faulty and indiscreet manner as he did not follow uniform standard in awarding marks to all candidates of Hanamkonda, Warangal and Sangareddy Divisions. The way he conducted himself led to cancellation of the examinations. The charge against the respondent, therefore, is not negligence only but may bring it within the ambit of discrimination. The fate of the candidates depends upon an honest evaluation of answer scripts. Such honesty is expected to be observed by all the evaluators. The way he conducted himself led to cancellation of the examinations. The charge against the respondent, therefore, is not negligence only but may bring it within the ambit of discrimination. The fate of the candidates depends upon an honest evaluation of answer scripts. Such honesty is expected to be observed by all the evaluators. It is, therefore, not a case where the respondent is merely guilty of negligence. In J. Ahmed (supra) the charges were failure to take any effective and preventive measure which was held to be an error in judgment in evaluating the development situation. ( 6 ) WHAT was questioned in the disciplinary proceeding was a degree of efficiency and not an ill motive or bad faith. A charge memo like the present one, in our opinion, must be read in its entirety. The very fact that by reason of indiscretion shown by the respondent herein, the entire examination had to be cancelled. In our opinion, clearly amounts to a misconduct, which requires a regular departmental enquiry. ( 7 ) IN Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 , the Apex Court has clearly held: "in the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the Court/ Tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court". ( 8 ) IT is not a case that charges framed are contrary to law. It is also not a case that no misconduct or any other irregularity has, at all, been made out. The function of the Court/ Tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court". ( 8 ) IT is not a case that charges framed are contrary to law. It is also not a case that no misconduct or any other irregularity has, at all, been made out. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the matter. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent herein submits that he has since retired and as such no disciplinary proceeding is maintainable and the learned Tribunal has not gone into this aspect of the matter. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, set aside the order of the learned Tribunal and remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal for determination of the question as to whether the disciplinary proceedings can continue having regard to the fact that the respondent herein has since retired. If necessary, the parties shall be at liberty to bring in additional materials before the Tribunal. No order as to costs.