JUDGMENT 1. - Charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (for short the CCA Rules) was served on the appellant and Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the appellant from three charges but found charge No. 4 partially proved. Thereafter, Administrator, Central Co-operative Bank, Bharatpur, imposed punishment of three grade increments with non-cumulative effect on the appellant. The appellant filed representation against the said order but the same was rejected. Thereafter the said order was assailed by filing writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge vide order dated December 17, 1999, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and scanned the material on record. 3. Charge No. 4 framed against the appellant was that in the year 1977-77 while he was posted as Assistant Executive Officer at Nandbai, he did not achieve the target or loan recovery and thus he committed misconduct. It was argued before the learned single Judge that not achieving the target in recovery of loan did not come within the purview of misconduct but learned single Judge held that the appellant was guilty of misconduct. According to the learned single Judge not performing the duties diligently in a responsible manner, to protect the interest of the Bank, certainly can be treated as misconduct. 4. We find ourselves unable to agree with the observations of learned single Judge. Their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286 : (1979 Lab IC 792), indicated 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. 5. 5. In the instant matter, where the charge No. 4 was partially found proved holding that the appellant was guilty of not making loan recovery as per the target fixed by the bank for the relevant year, in our opinion, would not itself constitute misconduct. 6. For these reasons, we allow the appeal, set-aside the impugned orders of learned single Judge dated December 17, 1999 as well as of the Administrator, Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank, Bharatpur, dated December 31, 1985. As a consequence of this order the appellant would be entitled to all consequential minority benefits. The respondent shall ensure compliance of this order within 90 days of the receipt of copy of this order. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******