JUDGMENT : 1. Sri G.S.D. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Pranat Chaudhary, Advocate, holding brief of Sri R.C. Shukla, Advocate, for respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the recovery order dated 18.11.2003 seeking recovery Rs. 35,582.50 from petitioner on the ground that 17 Bearings which were purchased in the year 1997-98 could not be utilized till January, 2003. 3. It is contended that petitioner was only Store Keeper and with regard to user of Bearings has no role and even otherwise, there is no fault on the part of petitioner. It is further contended that against show cause notice dated 04.07.2003 petitioner submitted reply but without considering his reply, the impugned recovery has been imposed upon petitioner by a totally unreasoned and non speaking order. 4. I find force in the submission. 5. Even if entire charge as treated to be correct, it does not constitute 'misconduct'. Therefore, no punishment could have been imposed. 6. 'Misconduct' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999: "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness." 7. 'Misconduct in Office' has been defined as: "Any unlawful behavior 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." 8. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 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. 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 discretion 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." 9. The meaning of 'misconduct' came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 , wherein, explaining the term 'misconduct' the Hon'ble Court held as under : "It would be appropriate at this stage to ascertain what generally constitutes misconduct, especially in the contest of disciplinary proceedings entailing penalty." (para 10) "Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pearce v. Foster) (1988) 17 QBD 536 (at p.542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspaper)]. (1959) 1 WLR 698 . This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Railway, Nagpur Divn., Nagpur, 61 Bom LR 1596: ( AIR 1961 Bom 150 ) and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa RazaF, (1969) 10 Guj LR 23. (1959) 1 WLR 698 . This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Railway, Nagpur Divn., Nagpur, 61 Bom LR 1596: ( AIR 1961 Bom 150 ) and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa RazaF, (1969) 10 Guj LR 23. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:- "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; act of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct." In industrial jurisprudence amongst others, habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct but in Management, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik, (1966) 2 SCR 434 : ( AIR 1966 SC 1051 ), in the absence of standing orders governing the employee's undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as misconduct in the context of discharge being assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 566 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1274 ), the manner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta, (1964) 2 SCR 104 : ( AIR 1963 SC 1756 ), wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the loadsheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. 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. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar (examples) instances of which (are) a railway cabinman signalling in a train on the same track where there is a stationary train causing headlong collision; a nurse giving intraveious injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashing causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil (see Navinchandra Shakerchand Shah v. Manager, Ahmedabad Co.-op. Department Stores Ltd., (1978) 19 Guj LR 108 at p.120). But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty." (para 11) 10. Again in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Ram Singh Ex-Constable, (1992) 4 SCC 54 Court has held as under: "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." (para 6) 11. In the context of Section 31 of Advocates Act, 1961, Supreme Court in Noratanmal Chouraria Vs. 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." (para 6) 11. In the context of Section 31 of Advocates Act, 1961, Supreme Court in Noratanmal Chouraria Vs. M.R. Murli & another 2004 (5) SCC 689 said: “Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done of omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, “improper behaviour, intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule or standard of behaviour”. Misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand, it is a violation of definite law.” 12. In Baldev Singh Gandhi Vs. State of Punjab & others AIR 2002 SC 1124 , with reference to the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, Court, considering the term 'misconduct' held as under : “ 'Misconduct' has not been defined in the Act. The word 'misconduct' is antithesis of the word 'conduct.' Thus, ordinarily the expression 'misconduct' means wrong or improper conduct, unlawful behaviour, misfeasance, wrong conduct, misdemeanour etc.” 13. Further, the entire purchase amount of the Bearings along with interest has been sought to be recovered from petitioner only by observing that the same were purchased in the year 1997-98 and could not be utilized upto January' 2003 and therefore the cost of 17 bearings amounting to Rs. 1,00,434/-along with interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum for four years be recovered from the salary of petitioner, but there is no discussion at all as to how and in what manner the said loss was attributable to petitioner or in what manner petitioner was responsible for purchase or non user of the said articles and the authority concerned has directly jumped to the 'conclusion' that the said amount is recoverable from petitioner without making any discussion and assigning 'reasons' therefor. 14. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. 15. In Union of India Vs. 14. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. 15. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 , it was held as under: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached." 16. Referring to the above case law, Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Panjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368 in para 18 said: "We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was "not found suitable otherwise", that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that "if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession". While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973)2 SCC 836 that "rubber-stamp" reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment "at this stage in preference to those selected", do not amount to "reasons for the proposed supersession" within the meaning of Clause 5. "Reasons", according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions". The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was "not found suitable" is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another "reason" for not bringing the appellant on the Select List." 17. Again in Uma Charan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 Court said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable" 18. In Mc Dermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Supreme Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..." 19. In Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) Court in para 23 said: "Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two." 20. In Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two." 20. In Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) Court said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision." 21. In the case in hand, since the impugned order is wholly unreasoned and non-speaking, the same cannot be sustained. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order 18.11.2003 is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost quantified to Rs. 10,000/-. 23. The amount, if any, already realized from petitioner, shall be refunded forthwith.