JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—An amendment application has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 17.1.2005. The same, being formal in nature, is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary corrections during the course of the day. 2. The petitioner was working as a Routine Grade Clerk and was subsequently1 promoted as an Upper Division Assistant in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad. 3. The petitioner has been awarded a censure entry vide order dated 2.11.2004 and his representation against the same has been rejected on 17.1.2005. The said order has been challenged on the ground that there was no material for the Disciplinary Authority to have deferred with the report of the Enquiry Officer and in the absence of any motive on the part of the petitioner, the award of censure entry ought not to have been made. 4. The facts shorn of details are that the petitioner was posted in the year 1996 in the Record-room of the High Court. The file of Second Appeal No. 1014 of 1993, which had been sent to the copying section, was returned back and the petitioner is stated to have received the said file on 10.1.1996 and restored it in the record room. Some application was moved in the said Second Appeal in which the Court directed that the application be listed with previous papers but the case could not be listed on account of the file not being traceable at its place. This caused the setting up of an inquiry and the Section Officer reported that the file had been allegedly misplaced where after a regular inquiry was set up against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 31.1.2004 informed the Registrar General that the file of the said case seems to have been misplaced during the course of shifting and rearranging of records. It was further indicated in the inquiry report that there was no ulterior motive for tying up the said file in the wrong Basta. After having received the said inquiry report, the Registrar General issued a notice to the petitioner indicating that the said report itself establishes that the file has been misplaced which amounts to dereliction of duty and misconduct and, therefore, the charge cannot be wiped out. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to give reply to the same. After having received the said inquiry report, the Registrar General issued a notice to the petitioner indicating that the said report itself establishes that the file has been misplaced which amounts to dereliction of duty and misconduct and, therefore, the charge cannot be wiped out. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to give reply to the same. The petitioner submitted his reply, which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner categorically stated that an inadvertent mistake of the file getting misplaced during the course of shifting and rearranging cannot be attributed as fault on the part of the petitioner and as a matter of fact the file was neither lost nor was it deliberately misplaced and, therefore, the punishment being awarded after 26 years of his unblemished service would be an obstacle in his future promotion. The petitioner, accordingly, made a request for dropping of the charges. The said explanation did not find favour with the Registrar General and the petitioner was awarded a censure entry on the ground that it amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had further informed the Registrar General that he had already been transferred on 15.11.1996 to the Dak Section and this search of the file has been made in the year 1997 when the application was moved in the Second Appeal. In this view of the matter, the file could be searched by the then persons, who were employed therein and there was no material before the Registrar General to indicate as to whether such effort had been made to search the file or not. As a matter of fact, the file was searched and retrieved and was placed before the Court. 6. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that while awarding the punishment of censure entry, the aforesaid aspects appear to have not been assessed appropriately and the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary is, therefore, not on a proper appreciation of facts. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer had made a recommendation for dropping the proceedings and there was no valid reason given for not agreeing with the said report. 7. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer had made a recommendation for dropping the proceedings and there was no valid reason given for not agreeing with the said report. 7. Sri Shailendra further submits that not only this a further attempt by the petitioner along with a representation to expunge the said censure entry remark has also not found favour and the same has been rejected by a one line order. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 17.1.2005 also deserves to be set aside. 8. Sri S.P. Singh, who appears on behalf of the High Court, contends that so far as the misplacement of the file is concerned, the same stands admitted and it was the petitioner, who was posted at the time when the file had been received in the record-room. In this view of the matter, Sri Singh contends that the conclusion of the Registrar General while disagreeing with the inquiry report is correct and it cannot be said to be perverse. He submits that for the same reason, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The petitioner has clearly indicated in his explanation that the Enquiry Officer during the regular inquiry found that the misplacement had occurred during the shifting and re-arranging of the file. This shifting and rearranging must have involved other employees as well about which there is no additional material nor did the Registrar General make any further inquiry into the matter after disagreeing with the inquiry report. In my opinion, this lapse on the part of the Registrar General, cannot be made the basis for negatively construing the inquiry report against the petitioner. The conclusion, therefore, drawn does not appear to be founded on any firm evidence. 10. The enquiry report does not fix the responsibility of actual misplacement on the petitioner. The indictment is, therefore, on a mere suspicion or doubt without any further evidence on the issue. The disagreement with the enquiry report is only on an inference with no conclusive evidence to support it. Censure is an act of disapproval or blame. This has to be preceded by locating the carelessness and not by merely inferring it. The Enquiry Officer did not blame the petitioner for not being diligent. The disagreement with the enquiry report is only on an inference with no conclusive evidence to support it. Censure is an act of disapproval or blame. This has to be preceded by locating the carelessness and not by merely inferring it. The Enquiry Officer did not blame the petitioner for not being diligent. As a matter of fact, the enquiry report does not indicate any oral evidence to radar the person who may have handled the shifting and re-arranging of files in the record-room. The shifting or rearrangement might have been done even after the petitioner was transferred from the Section on 15.11.1996. The Registrar General did not make any further investigation to pin point the responsibility nor any further enquiry was conducted after the disagreement with the enquiry officer’s report. This lack of effort cannot be substituted by an inference which can only be termed as a surmise. The conclusion drawn by the Registrar General is not inconformity with law and, therefore, the punishment awarded is irrational. 11. Accordingly, the order passed by the Registrar General awarding the censure entry dated 2.11.2004 is quashed. The order rejecting the representation dated 17.1.2005 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. ————