Suresh Kait, J. 1. The present petition is against the order dated 31st January, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.924/2004. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition is before us. The main question is that whether the Respondent herein is a guilty of grave misconduct or negligence while working as Sub Post Master (SPM), Rakabganj, Agra. 3. The Respondent herein has allowed one Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh to open accounts without filling up the complete details that is address, fathers name and house number of the depositor, (i) to enable the department to establish the identity of the depositor (ii) to get the signatures of depositor as applicant at the prescribed place in SB-3 before allowing opening of saving bank account No. 712103 at Rakabgarij Post Office, Agra. These accounts were opened on the introduction of one Mr. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal. 4. The Respondent herein also failed to scrutinize the withdrawal form (SB- 7) in a proper manner before making payment. The heavy withdrawal was allowed on the different dates and within short span without verifying the antecedent. Due to this carelessness on the part of the Respondent who was head of that post office on a supervisory post, the department sustained the total loss of Rs. 8,68,250+Rs. 1,28,520= total Rs. 9,96,770/-. 5. A charge sheet of major penalty was issued on 4th July, 2002 and subsequently an inquiry was ordered vide order dated 11th July, 2002. 6. The Respondent herein retired on superannuation on 31st July, 2002. The inquiry was concluded and report of the inquiry was submitted on 24th September, 2003 and the charges were proved. On 13th February, 2004, the file was sent for advice to Union Public Service Commission. After considering the opinion of the UPSC, a penalty of withholding of 25% pension for five years was imposed. The same was challenged by way of OA No. 924/2004 which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 31st January, 2005. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued on the ground that the CAT has over looked the inquiry report and has allowed the OA of the Respondent herein contrary to the observations of the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment/order dated 31st January, 2005 that: "In fact situation of this case, we don’t find that the enquiry has proved any grave misconduct. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment/order dated 31st January, 2005 that: "In fact situation of this case, we don’t find that the enquiry has proved any grave misconduct. We have read the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which has concluded that the charged official did not follow the prescribed procedures regarding opening of accounts and he was equally guilty of not following the procedure regarding withdrawal of the amount. He did not check the signature of the depositor on SB-3cards. Identity of the depositor is also not affirmed". 7. The Tribunal immediately after this observations further reached on the conclusion that: "There is no specific finding either of grave misconduct or grave negligence. Findings would be apparent on the face of record being a condition precedent. As such the OA is bound to succeed", 8. The Petitioner herein filed a Review Application. Accordingly, Review Application was dismissed vide order dated 9th January, 2006. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention on paragraph 4 of the order dated 24th February, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Communication and LT. Department of Post, Government of India which is as under: "The above contentions have been carefully considered. Grave procedural lapses relating to opening of accounts and allowing transactions from the said account on the basis of which the alleged loss has been worked out by the inquiry officer were committed by the ex-official. Same is the position regarding MIS A/C Nos. 146120, 146122 & 146147. His contributory negligence clearly established his indirect complicity in the fraud. This is proved from the facts that he had failed to abide by the laid down procedure and instructions for opening of different types of accounts and allowed transactions from the said accounts without challenging it, which was in fact grave act of negligence and action under Rule 14 was therefore rightly taken against him." further he has drawn our attention to sub- Para of Para 5 of the order dated 24th February, 2004 issued by the Petitioner that:- "The Commission has carefully considered the facts of the case, inquiry report and evidence on record and have observed that the charges established against the charged official constituted grave misconduct. The Commission has advised that the ends of justice would be met in this case if 25% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Sh. The Commission has advised that the ends of justice would be met in this case if 25% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Sh. R.K. Jain is withheld for a period of five years. The gratuity admissible to him has been advised to be released if no other case was pending against him". 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent points out that Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules is not applicable whereas the order of punishment was passed on the charge of misconduct. He further stated that Rule 8 of CCS Pension Rules is applicable. 11. Before deciding this issue, we have to go through first Rule 8 of the CCS Pension Rules which is reproduced as under: Pension subject to future good conduct (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. (b) The Appointing Authority may, be order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Provided that, where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall riot be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five (Rupees One Thousand nine hundred and thirteen from 1-4-2004-see GID below Rule 49) per mensem. Provided that, where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall riot be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five (Rupees One Thousand nine hundred and thirteen from 1-4-2004-see GID below Rule 49) per mensem. (2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, authority under sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule (3) in a case not falling under sub-rule(2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule(1), considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule (1) (a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice of such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the Appointing Authority such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and (b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under Clause(a) (4) Where the authority competent to pass an order sub-rule (1) is the President, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. (5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule(I), passed by any authority other than the President, shall lie to the President and the President shall, in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit. 12. After going through the aforesaid Rule, we have reached to the conclusion that Rule 81(b) is applicable only where the authority has passed order in writing, withholding or withdrawing the pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specific period, "If the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct". Therefore, Rule 8 of the CCS Pension Rule is applicable only where a charge of only misconduct is proved. 13. Whereas in the present case, the charge against the Respondent is of misconduct and negligence as is mentioned in the Article of Charges which were proved as per the report of the inquiry officer. 14. Therefore, Rule 8 of the CCS Pension Rule is applicable only where a charge of only misconduct is proved. 13. Whereas in the present case, the charge against the Respondent is of misconduct and negligence as is mentioned in the Article of Charges which were proved as per the report of the inquiry officer. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that Rule 9 of CCS Pension Rules is applicable in the present case. To test this contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner, we have to go through Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules also. Rule 9 of the CCE; Pension Rules is reproduced as under: 9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension. (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or with- drawn, the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy-five (Rupees One Thousand nine hundred and thirteen from 1-4-2004-see GID below Rule 49) per mensem. 15. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also relied upon the Judgment of Apex Court i.e. (1998) 7 see 691 Union of India & Others v. B. Dev decided on 14th August; 1998 in Civil Appeal No. 7444/1996 . Their lordship had very rightly decided that where only the charge of misconduct is there, Rule 8 of the CCS Pension Rule is applicable but in the present case, the grave misconduct or negligence are in issue, therefore, the Rule 9 of CCS Pension Rule is applicable. Therefore, the Respondent cannot take the benefit of this judgment. He also relied upon paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Apex Court. Paragraph 7 is as under: "The enquiry against the Respondent was initiated while he was in service. Therefore, the Respondent cannot take the benefit of this judgment. He also relied upon paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Apex Court. Paragraph 7 is as under: "The enquiry against the Respondent was initiated while he was in service. He was charged under Rules 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, These Rules are as follows: "3 General - (1) Every government servant shall at all times. (i) Maintain absolute integrity; (ii) Maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) Do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. It would not be correct to say that a government servant who is charged with not maintaining devotion to duty or with conduct unbecoming of a government servant •cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct. The gravity of the misconduct would depend upon the nature of the conduct. The Tribunal wrongly held that because the enquiry was initiated under Rules 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, the respondent cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct." Their lordships have observed as under: The enquiry was continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules after the date of superannuation of the respondent. The Tribunal is of the view that "grave misconduct" as defined in Rule 8(5) Explanation (b) (sic) of the CCS (Pension) Rules had not been committed. Hence no action for grave misconduct could be taken under Rule 9. However, under Rule 8, pension is subject to future good conduct. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, if the authority considers that the pensioner was prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order, serve upon the pensioner notice as specified therein, taking into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner; and under sub-clause (4), where the authority competent to pass an order is the President, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. Sub - rule (5) referred to by the Tribunal does not appear to be relevant in the present case. It deals with appeals from orders passed by an authority, other than the President. Sub - rule (5) referred to by the Tribunal does not appear to be relevant in the present case. It deals with appeals from orders passed by an authority, other than the President. Under Explanation (b) to Rule 8, the expression "grave misconduct" is defined to include, " the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923......" The explanation clearly extends grave misconduct to cover communication of any official secrets. It is not an exhaustive definition. The Tribunal was not right in concluding that only kind of misconduct, which should be held to be grave, is the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information of an official secret. There can be many kinds of grave misconduct. The explanation does not confine grave misconduct to only the type of misconduct described there. "Rule 3(1) (0) defines "pension" as including gratuity except when the term "pension" is used in contradiction to "gratuity". "Rule 9 gives to the President the right of - (1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, (2) either permanently or for a specified period, and (3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The power, therefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover the loss from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable". "The Tribunal has held that no charge of grave misconduct was framed or found proved against the respondent. This is clearly incorrect looking to the express language of the charge-as framed and the enquiry report. "The Tribunal has held that no charge of grave misconduct was framed or found proved against the respondent. This is clearly incorrect looking to the express language of the charge-as framed and the enquiry report. The charge as framed expressly charged the respondent with having committed grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty without authorization and by continuing to disobey government orders issued to him for joining duty. He was charged with lack of devotion to duty and of conduct unbecoming of a government servant, and this was violative of the provisions of Rule 3(1) sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The finding also is that this charge of grave misconduct has been proved in the enquiry report. The conduct, therefore, of the respondent falls under Rule 9 and the order of the President dated 18-12-1984 cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also relied upon the judgment (2007) 4 SCC 566 : 2007 (95) DRJ 267[SC] Inspector Prem Chand v. Government of NCT of Delhi & others decided on 5th April, 2007 in Civil Appeal No. 1815/2007. By this judgment their lordships have defined misconduct as under:" Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. Term embraces acts which the office-holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act." Further their lordships have observed that "The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct." The same is the position in the matter of Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Railway, Nagpur Division, (1959) 61 Bombay LR 1596. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct." The same is the position in the matter of Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Railway, Nagpur Division, (1959) 61 Bombay LR 1596. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Strouds Judicial Dictionary which defines as under: "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct." But in the present case, the Respondent was duty bound to take all the steps and should have been more careful while opening the accounts specially and withdrawing the huge money by the same person within a very short period, therefore, the act of the officer is not wilful then definitely he was very much careless which comes under the definition of misconduct. 15. Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules is reproduced as under: "(I) The resident reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, eith0er in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed." After going through Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules, it is very much mentioned therein that if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct. or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement, the President has right to withhold or withdraw pension. We have also observed that as per the requirement of this Rule, the UPSC was also consulted before passing the final order. 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court (1992) 4 SCC 54 State Bank of Punjab & Others v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable in Civil Appeal No. 2651/1992 decided on 24th July, 1.992. Their lordships have discussed and decided what misconduct is and what grave misconduct is? 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court (1992) 4 SCC 54 State Bank of Punjab & Others v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable in Civil Appeal No. 2651/1992 decided on 24th July, 1.992. Their lordships have discussed and decided what misconduct is and what grave misconduct is? Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment are reproduced as below: Misconduct has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus: "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanour, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness. " “Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer is relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act." P. Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987 at page 821 defines misconduct thus: "The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskilfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where, some direction is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public officer, by which the rights of a party have been affected." "Thus it could be seen that the word misconduct though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of• bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order. In (2003) 4 SCC, 364, Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Others v. P.C. Kakkar in Civil Appeal No. 3433/2000 with Civil Appeal No. 1185/2003 i.e. P.C. Kakkar v. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Others decided on 11th February, 2003, their lordships have held: "It is settled that the court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of Wednesbury principle the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision." "The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision." 17. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision." 17. We are of the view that the Respondent herein was charged of grave misconduct and negligence, as he has not given any care and importance while opening of the saving accounts and withdrawing of heavy amount which caused a loss to the public exchequer. At least, at the time of opening of the accounts, he was duty bound to see whether the complete details of opening of accounts are properly filled up and he was also duty bound to be vigilant at the time of withdrawal of heavy money on few dates. 18. We are at the conclusion that the order passed by the CAT is bad and is set aside and the Respondent herein deserves the order of withholding of 25% pension as was the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 19. We are of the considered opinion that nothing was wrong with the orders passed by the Petitioners, therefore, we set aside the order dated 31st January, 2005 passed by the CAT in OA No. 924/2004. 20. The present writ petition is allowed. No costs.