ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application, challenges the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna, whereby he has been dismissed from service on the charge of certain misconduct alleged against him. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Chairman of the Bank-cum- Appellate Authority by which his appeal against the said order of punishment has been rejected. 3. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time posted as Branch Manager, Maharajganj Branch of Bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him with the issuance of a chargesheet vide memo No. 306 dated 11.11.2011. The chargesheet contained three charges to the following effect:- I. The petitioner did not take any interest in the work of recovery of loan during the financial year 2010-11. II. The recovery against loan during the month of June was zero as against the fixed target of Rs. 0.50 thousand. III. He did not submit any explanation to the show-cause issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank for loan recovery being made during the period of July 2010 to May 2011. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge before the Enquiry Officer, explaining the circumstance in which the loan recovery could not be made during the period in question. In his written statement of defence to the chargesheet, he took a plea that he was the only employee posted in the Branch. There was neither any Assistant nor a Peon. He was the person who would open the Bank and he could leave the Branch only after closing it. He also took a plea that power of Certificate Officer was not vested in any officer during the period in question and it was, therefore, difficult for him to recover loan during the said period. As regards non-submission of his explanation to the show-cause issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer, he took a plea that he never received such letter No. 1744 dated 15.06.2011 as mentioned in the chargesheet. 5. The Enquiry Officer considering the petitioner’s written statement of defence and other materials recorded his findings. He found the plea of the petitioner that he was the only person posted in the Branch as correct and bonafide. 5. The Enquiry Officer considering the petitioner’s written statement of defence and other materials recorded his findings. He found the plea of the petitioner that he was the only person posted in the Branch as correct and bonafide. He also accepted the petitioner’s contention that power of Certificate Officer was not vested in any Bank Officer in the concerned district. He however, observed that the petitioner should have been more careful and should have given special attention to the work of loan recovery. As regards absence of power of a Certificate Officer, he observed that the petitioner should have taken help from the Area Manager in this regard and he finally concluded that the petitioner did not make as much efforts as he should have made for recovery of loan. 6. Agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order also stipulates that petitioner would not be entitled for any salary for anything over and above the subsistence allowance for the period during which he was under suspension. 7. The Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment of removal from service has been converted into “placing the petitioner in the lowest scale of basic pay”. The order of the Appellate Authority further contemplates that the petitioner will not be entitled for any salary from the date of the order of dismissal from service till the date of joining pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank justifying the action taken. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the charges framed against him as a matter of fact do not constitute a misconduct. He further submits that in any view of the matter, no punishment ought to have been imposed upon the petitioner in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer who accepted the petitioner’s explanation in his written statement of defence, wherein he had given reasons why recovery of loan could not be made during the period in question. He further submits that order of the Disciplinary Authority is cryptic and non-speaking, without considering the petitioner’s explanation or other material on record. He further submits that order of the Disciplinary Authority is cryptic and non-speaking, without considering the petitioner’s explanation or other material on record. He also submits that even the Appellate Authority passed the order without considering the petitioner’s memo of appeal and his written statement of defence. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Bank on the other hand has submitted that for a bank employee, it is a misconduct if he fails to discharge his duties properly in making recovery of loan, which is one of the most important functions of the bank. 11. To appreciate as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer establish misconduct at all on the part of the petitioner, it would be apt to extract relevant portion of the findings of the Enquiry Officer here itself:- ^^vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi ,oa vkjksiksa ds fo:) vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk fn;s x;s fyf[kr lQkbZ dh leh{kk dh x;hA leh{kksijkar ik;k x;k fd vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh dk ;g dguk fd ‘kk[kk esa os vdsys dkfeZd Fks] ftlds dkj.k bUgsa dk;kZy; [kksyuk ,oa olwyh gsrq {ks= esa tkuk iM+rk Fkk] dqN gn rd lgh izrhr gksrk gSA tgk¡ rd ftyk esa fuyke i= inkf/kdkjh dh ‘kfDr fdlh inkf/kdkjh dks ugha jgus dh ckr vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk dgh x;h gS] ;g mfpr izrhr gksrk gS] D;ksafd mDr ftyk esa cSad inkf/kdkjh dks fuyke i= inkf/kdkjh dh ‘kfDr iznRr ugha gSA ‘kk[kk izca/kd _.k olwyh gsrq mRrjnk;h gksrs gSaA vHkh ‘kk[kk esa eq[; :Ik ls olwyh dk gh dk;Z py jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh dks _.k olwyh ij gh fo’ks”k :Ik ls /;ku nsuk pkfg, FkkA buds }kjk vius Li”Vhdj.k esa _.k olwyh gsrq {ks= esa tkus ls laca/kh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftlls ifjyf{kr gks lds fd buds }kjk {ks= esa Hkze.k fd;k x;k gSA tgk¡ rd fuyke i= inkf/kdkjh dh ‘kfDr iznRr ugha gksus dk iz’u gS] {ks= izca/kd ls lEidZ dj bUgsa ftyk iz’kk[kk dk lg;ksx ysuk pkfg, Fkk] ijarq buds }kjk bl rjg dk iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vkjksfir inkf/kdkjh }kjk olwyh dk ftruk iz;kl fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] mruk iz;kl ugha fd;k x;kA vr% buds fo:) vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA** 12. What can be deciphered from the conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer that he found the petitioner’s explanation to be correct that he had been facing difficulties, he being the sole person posted in the Bank. He has however observed that the petitioner should have paid special attention in recovery of loan. 13. This is to be noted that there was a third charge to the effect that the petitioner did not submit his explanation though asked by the Chief Vigilance Officer but, there is no finding on the said charge by the Enquiry Officer. 14. In case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 566 the Supreme Court dealt with the term misconduct and held, “misconduct means” misconduct arising from ill-motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct”. 15. In the present case there is no allegation that the petitioner deliberately did something or failed to do something which resulted into less recovery of loans during the period in question. His explanation that there was none posted in the Branch, not even a Class IV employee was, as a matter of fact accepted. Even the Enquiry Officer did not find him to have committed or omitted something intentionally. At the maximum it says that the petitioner did not make so much of efforts as he was required to make for recovery of loan. This is my opinion, cannot constitute “Misconduct”. The term misconduct has been recently considered by Supreme Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V. Collector reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 reiterating that mere error of judgment in doing of negligent act does not amount to misconduct. The Court reiterated the view taken by Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. J. Ahmad reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 held that conclusion about absence of lack of personal being incumbent do not amount to misconduct holding the person liable for punishment. In paragraph 18 of the judgment in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V. Collector (supra) the Court held thus:- “18. The expression “misconduct” has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, unlawful behavior, wilful in character. It may be synonymous as misdemeanor in propriety and mismanagement. In paragraph 18 of the judgment in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V. Collector (supra) the Court held thus:- “18. The expression “misconduct” has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, unlawful behavior, wilful in character. It may be synonymous as misdemeanor in propriety and mismanagement. In a particular case, negligence or carelessness may also be a misconduct for example, when a watchman leaves his duty and goes to watch cinema, though there may be no theft or loss to the institution but leaving the place of duty itself amounts to misconduct. It may be more serious in case of disciplinary forces.” 16. In view of the judicial pronouncement as noted above, it is settled that in order to constitute misconduct the act complained of must be wilful in character amounting to transgression of some definite rule of action. 17. I find substance in the submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges do not constitute such misconduct warranting disciplinary action, particularly in view of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 18. I also find that the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as order of the Appellate Authority are cryptic and non-speaking. I accordingly set aside the impugned orders dated 16.04.2013 and 10.09.2013 with all consequential benefits. 19. This application is accordingly allowed. 20. A question has been raised whether the Chief Vigilance Officer could act as disciplinary authority or not by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has however, not pressed this point in view of the stand taken by the Respondent Bank. I have not gone into merits of this point.