JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.:- 1. Instant Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th May, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. Precise flash back of the circumstances as have given rise to the instant lis is noticed hereunder. A Court of Enquiry was constituted to find out irregularities in maintaining the accounts of PCO fund of 166 Bn. CRPF and to pinpoint responsibilities. The Court of Enquiry submitted its proceedings to the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Greater Noida (U.P). On examination of the records, the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Greater Noida issued Office Order No. 1.X/2007-EC-3 dated month of April, 2007. In the said order, the Deputy Inspector of CRPF, after noticing the facts as were established, has concluded as under:- "3. Keeping in view the above facts put forth by the Board in the COI and examining all the facts in this office, I found that there was no financial implication involved in the above case and it is reported that concerned accounts have been properly accounted now. There fore, to settle the case, the following orders are hereby issued:- (i) Insp (GD) Mahender Singh and CT(GD) S.N. Pandey of 166 Bn. CRPF who had kept PCO amount Rs. 4,435/- and Rs. 3,113/- respectively with them and did not deposit the amount in SM treasury in time, Comdt. 166 BN CRPF be issued "CENSURE" to above personnel and made a copy to the ACR of concerned individual. (ii) Similarly Shri Chajju Ram Comdt. (presently posted in ISA Mt. Abu Shri U.S. Shekhawat 2-1/C and Shri Surinder Kumar Dy. Comdt. (Now 2-1/C and posted in 23 Bn) who were performing the duties of Head of Office of 166 Bn. CRPF, Accounts Officer respectively directly involved in the above matter, it is recommended that the above officer may be issued "DISPLEASURE" letter by IGP N/S CRPF." It appears that the aforesaid conclusions were not accepted, as a result whereof from the Directorate General CRPF, a memorandum was issued vide No. O.IX-9/2007-CRC dated 7th March, 2008 whereunder, it has been mentioned that the President proposes to hold an inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. As a follow up, statement of articles of charge were framed against the respondent-Commandant, CRPF-IRLA 2547. As a follow up, statement of articles of charge were framed against the respondent-Commandant, CRPF-IRLA 2547. Then statement of imputation of mis-conduct in support of the articles of charge framed were formulated. The articles of the charge were as under:- "ARTICLE-I That the said Shri Chajju Ram, Commandant, IRLA No. 2547 while functioning as Commandant 166 Bn, CRPF from 15.07.2004 to 28-02-2006, committed a serious misconduct, in that, he failed to enter into a formal/proper agreement with M/s. Maharashtra Sports and Special Foundation for Disables who installed a Telephone bearing No. 3097146 in the Unit on 12.08.2004 and also failed to ensure that the monthly payment of Rs. 1,500/- agreed to be paid by above agency to Unit WAF was realized from them timely for the period 12.08.2004 to 13.04.2005. Thus, the said Shri Chajju Ram, Commandant failed to maintain transparency and fairness while dealing with civilians and thereby failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II That during the aforesaid period and while function in the said office, the said Shri Chajju Ram, Commandant committed a serious misconduct, in that, he failed to ensure that the collection from Telephone No. 3097146 during the period 13/04/05 to 19/09/05 was deposited into SM's Treasury daily and instead allowed Shri U.S. Shekhawat, 2 I/C, Accounts Officer of the Unit to retain the amount totaling to Rs. 17,506/- with him unauthorisedly till 16/12/2005 (Rs. 17,500/-) and 23/02/2006 (Rs. 6). He also failed to ensure proper accounting of the collection/expenditure of above telephone and did not exercise any check over it. Thus, the said officer failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the said office, the said Shri Chajju Ram, commandant committed a serious misconduct in that he spent Rs. 20,000/- from the collection/funds of Telephone No. 3097146 for meeting the excess expenditure in connection with passing out parade of the Unit on 17/08/2005 against the instructions of Directorate General. No codal formalities were observed for the above expenditure. Thereafter, as an after thought approval of the Unit Welfare Committee was obtained on 11/01/2006 for regularizing above expenditure. 20,000/- from the collection/funds of Telephone No. 3097146 for meeting the excess expenditure in connection with passing out parade of the Unit on 17/08/2005 against the instructions of Directorate General. No codal formalities were observed for the above expenditure. Thereafter, as an after thought approval of the Unit Welfare Committee was obtained on 11/01/2006 for regularizing above expenditure. Thus, the said Officer failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-IV That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the said office, the said Shri Chajju Ram, commandant committed a serious misconduct in that he without observing any codal formalities, purchased a phone No. 3957163 for Rs. 12,500/- from his pocket instead of Unit WAF/Canteen and installed it in the Unit on 31-12-2004. He also failed to ensure that the collection earned from this telephone from 31-12-2004 to 19-09-2005 was deposited into SM's treasury daily and instead allowed Accounts Officer cum Canteen Chairman of the Unit to retain the amount totaling to Rs. 70,252/- with them unauthorisedly till the same was deposited into Unit WAF on 16/12/2005. During this period, he neither ensured proper accounting of the collection/expenditure of above telephone nor exercised any check over it. Thus, the said Officer failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-V That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the said office, the said Shri Chajju Ram, Commandant committed a misconduct in that in gross violation of SO-77/2001, he permitted running of a dry canteen in the Unit at GC CRPF Nagpur campus though GC canteen was already functioning over there. Thus, the said Officer failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." 2. The Inquiry Officer, on completion of inquiry, has concluded that the articles of charge Nos. I, II and IV were proved. Article of charge No. III was partly proved and No. V was not proved. servant thereby violating the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." 2. The Inquiry Officer, on completion of inquiry, has concluded that the articles of charge Nos. I, II and IV were proved. Article of charge No. III was partly proved and No. V was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on second stage advice, as received from the Central Vigilance Commission dated 17.02.2011, has issued show cause notice to which the respondent has submitted his representation. Thereafter the matter has been referred by the Disciplinary Authority to the UPSC so as to decide the quantum of penalty to be imposed. Finally, the following penalty was imposed. "........reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for the period up to 30/6/2013 i.e. from Rs. 49,110/- to 47,420/- w.e.f. 1/5/2012 to 30/6/2013 in the pay band of Rs. 37400 to Rs. 67,000 with regard pay of Rs. 8700/-, with further direction that the CO. will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing future increment of his pay" is imposed upon Shri Chajju Ram, Commandant (IRLA-2547), CRPF and orders accordingly....." 3. Dissatisfied with this penalty, an appeal was preferred before the President, without success, as the same has been dismissed vide order No. D. IX-9/2007-CRC dated 31st July, 2012. Aggrieved thereof, respondent filed the writ Petition titled Chajju Ram v. Union of India and Anr., which has been allowed vide judgment impugned dated 30th May, 2013. Dissatisfied therewith, Union of India has filed the instant LPA. 4. First, it is contended that the learned Single Judge in the judgment has observed at para 9 that the Central Vigilance Commission vide order No. 008/MHA/009/119736 dated 17.02.2011, had advised for imposition of suitable 'minor penalty', show cause notice has been issued as to why minor penalty be not imposed. Sidelining the same, major penalty has been imposed. The observation is not in consonance with the record. The contention is right because letter No. 008/MHA009/119736 dated 17.02.2011 available on the records provides for imposition of 'major penalty' and not 'minor penalty'. The said observation, as such, is unsustainable. 5. Sidelining the same, major penalty has been imposed. The observation is not in consonance with the record. The contention is right because letter No. 008/MHA009/119736 dated 17.02.2011 available on the records provides for imposition of 'major penalty' and not 'minor penalty'. The said observation, as such, is unsustainable. 5. Then again, it is contended that in para 23 of the judgment, it has been observed that the Disciplinary Authority seem to have been hunting for an excuse to inflict major penalty on the petitioner. A novel procedure has been adopted by the Disciplinary Authority, not visualized by the relevant Rules. Factual error has crept in, i.e., imposition of 'minor penalty' has been noticed to have been advised by the Central Vigilance Commission when in fact, the said Commission has advised for imposition of 'major penalty'. Therefore, in the same background, the observation as noticed is also unsustainable, shall be ignored. 6. It is further contended that in the judgment, it has been observed that certain documents were not provided to the respondent which disabled him from filing adequate response. This is not factually correct. On perusal of the records, it is found that the respondent has been given ample opportunity to represent as against the proceedings. No doubt, at the first stage, he has not been furnished documents but subsequently, has been furnished the documents, based on which, he has made his representation, therefore, no prejudice on such account. 7. Now, most important aspect of the case which emerges for determination is as to whether penalty imposed is commensurate with the act committed by the respondent. In this connection, learned Single Judge while referring to the articles of charge and then to Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, has opined that there was no element of embezzlement involved in the case, as is clear from the findings recorded by the DIG, Greater Noida. The action of the respondent has been observed to be an irregularity. When it is so, to impose major penalty shall be unjust and unwarranted. 8. Learned Single Judge, in short, has observed and opined that the act committed by the respondent, does not fall within the ambit of Rule 3 so as to warrant imposition of major punishment. Same carries weight. 9. When it is so, to impose major penalty shall be unjust and unwarranted. 8. Learned Single Judge, in short, has observed and opined that the act committed by the respondent, does not fall within the ambit of Rule 3 so as to warrant imposition of major punishment. Same carries weight. 9. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, while relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 , cannot be faulted with. It shall be quite relevant to quote the following para from the said judgment. "....It is, however, difficult to believe 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." 10. It is true that the respondent, who was a Commandant, belonged to a disciplined force, much caution, responsibility and highest discipline is expected from the officers/officials of the disciplined force. Slightest, indiscipline is intolerable. In the instant case, in the light of the articles of charge and in the light of the initial findings of the DIG CRPF, there was a little scope for imposition of major punishment. If the same is maintained, it will be beyond proportions and not in consonance with law and justice. 11. The factual background and the cause shown against the imposition of major punishment on the respondent has not been properly appreciated, as a result whereof, major punishment has been imposed. The Disciplinary authority is required to consider the matter afresh vis-a-vis, imposition of penalty The punishment awarded is set aside. The Disciplinary authority shall, afresh accord consideration to the case projected by the respondent, as against the imposition of major penalty and in the process, shall keep in view the trivial nature of the negligence/irregularity coupled with the fact of non-embezzlement and thereafter to pass appropriate orders vis-a-vis, imposition or non-imposition of penalty in the light of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The respondent shall also be given further time to supplement the cause as projected, for taking lenient view which otherwise is also warranted. The order providing for imposition of major penalty dated 11.04.2012 maintained. The judgment impugned shall stand accordingly modified.