JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21st June, 2003 passed by the Director General of Jail Administration by which deduction of 10% from the pension of the petitioner has been ordered in exercise of the powers under Rule 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. 2. The petitioner joined the U.P. Jail services as Bandi Rakshak on 18th August, 1965 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Jailor in the year 1979 and when the said post was declared as a dying cadre, the petitioner was absorbed as Deputy Jailor in the year 1988. On 19th October, 1998, the Jailor, District Jail Gonda went on leave for four days and, therefore, the petitioner was entrusted with the charge of Jailor. The Jailor, however, did return back in time and so the petitioner continued to work as Jailor. A charge-sheet dated 6th May, 1999 was served upon the petitioner in respect of an incident that took place on 24th October, 1998 while the petitioner was discharging the duties of Jailor in district Jail Banda. After completion of the enquiry, a report dated 13th March, 2000 was submitted and thereafter a show-cause notice dated 19th May, 2000 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to submit a reply. The petitioner submitted a reply on 3rd July, 2000 and thereafter the order dated 21st June, 2003 was passed imposing the punishment of reduction of 10% of the pension. It is this order that has been impugned in the present petition. 3. Sri Surendra Kumar Mishra learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 21st June, 2003 deserves to be set aside inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the State Government by misconduct or negligence. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the order passed under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations was justified and called for no interference. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to consider the charges levelled against the petitioner. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to consider the charges levelled against the petitioner. The sole charge mentions that the petitioner who was a Deputy Jailor in District Jail Gonda was the Acting Jailor from 19th October, 1998 to 25th October, 1998. On 24th October, 1998 at about 7:55 AM six under trial prisoners were taken for work outside the jail at Farm No. 1 by the Command Officer Sri Bindadin Bandi along with Sri Shyam Manohar Mishra who was the Santri on duty. One prisoner threw chilli powder in the eyes of Sri Bindadin and fled away with the co-prisoner Mangru. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that being the Acting Jailor he should not have permitted the prisoners to go outside the jail. He was, therefore, found guilty of various provisions of U.P. Jail Manual for not discharging his duty properly in managing the security arrangement of the jail properly and not properly selecting the prisoners who were to go outside the jail. The reply submitted by the petitioner was that though five posts of Deputy Jailors and one post of Jailor had been sanctioned by the Government for District Jail Gonda but on the relevant date there were only two Deputy Jailors and one of them Sri Janardhan Chaubey who had come from Reserved Headquarters after getting promotion had no experience at all and, therefore, all the work like sending the prisoners to the Courts, replying to the letters of the Courts and releasing the prisoners in compliance to the order had been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner, apart from having been required to perform the duty of Jailor was also having the charge of Deputy Jailor. There was, therefore, no laxity shown by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer in his report clearly mentioned that the Command Officer Sri Bindadin had broken the command and sent the two prisoners along with the Santri for carrying the vegetables for the lockup and had himself proceeded along with four prisoners for placing the material in the godown when the two prisoners fled away after throwing the chilli powder in the eyes of the Command Officer. The only charge, therefore, levelled against the petitioner was that he had loose control over his sub-ordinates as a result of which the prisoners managed to flee away. 6. The only charge, therefore, levelled against the petitioner was that he had loose control over his sub-ordinates as a result of which the prisoners managed to flee away. 6. The order of punishment against the petitioner was passed under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and the relevant portion is quoted below:- "351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.................." 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was not at all responsible for the fleeing away of the two prisoners and the only charges that had been levelled against the petitioner was that he had loose control over his subordinates which resulted in the said act. This according to him would not amount to an act of grave misconduct attracting the provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and in support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decisions in Union of India and others v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 ; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Abdul Gafoor, 2006 (3) ESC 1985 and in M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India and others, JT 2005 (9) SC 506. 8. The sole question, therefore, that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner under the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations even if it is to be assumed that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of having loose control over his subordinates as a result of which two prisoners fled away from the District Jail Gonda. Regulation 351-A clearly provides that the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from pension, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct" during his service. Regulation 351-A clearly provides that the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from pension, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct" during his service. The Supreme Court in Jamil Ahmad (supra) observed that failure to attain the highest expectation of an Officer holding responsible post or lack of aptitude of quality of leadership would not constitute as failure to maintain devotion to duty because if it is so then every Officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. In the said case the charges levelled against the Officer indicated lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and lack of indecisiveness but the Supreme Court observed that these deficiencies in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. In M.M. Malhotra (supra) the Supreme Court observed : "Misconduct" as stated in Batts Law of Master and Servant (4th Edition) (at page 63) is "comprised positive acts and not mere neglects or failures". The definition of the word as given in Ballentines Law Dictionary (148th Edition) is "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand, it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness." 9. In Abdul Gafoor (supra) a Division Bench of this Court after noticing the aforesaid decisions observed that the allegations against the petitioner that he did not get the bus in question checked when it came to the Depot at 10:30 PM did not amount to misconduct as his inaction or failure of duty could not be the main cause for the fire in the bus. In the present case, the only allegation that has been levelled against the petitioner is that he had loose control over his subordinates as a result of which two prisoners fled away. The inquiry report does not indicate that the petitioner was directly responsible for the fleeing away of these two prisoners. The punishment under Regulation 351-A could have been imposed upon the petitioner only if he was guilty of grave misconduct. In view of the aforesaid decisions it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct. The inquiry report does not indicate that the petitioner was directly responsible for the fleeing away of these two prisoners. The punishment under Regulation 351-A could have been imposed upon the petitioner only if he was guilty of grave misconduct. In view of the aforesaid decisions it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct. The order dated 21st June, 2003 cannot, therefore, be sustained. 10. The submissions advanced by the learned Standing Counsel that this Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment does not arise for consideration in the present case inasmuch as for the act indicated above punishment could not have been awarded under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21st June, 2003 is quashed. The petitioner shall be paid the balance amount of pension with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it was due to the date of payment. ————