Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anuradha Singh, learned SC 21. 2. The present writ application has been preferred: – (i) for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs for quashing of the impugned resolution contained in memo no. 534 dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-23) issued under the signature of Respondent no. 6 whereby and whereunder penalty of dismissal from service with disqualification for future employment under the government was imposed upon the petitioner; (ii) consequent upon the quashing of the impugned order the respondents may be directed to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of salary to the petitioner. 3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present petition is/are as follows: 4. The petitioner was appointed as the Inspector of Factories, Department of Labour, Training and Employment Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the Department’) on 05.06.1993 after having been recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission (henceforth for short ‘the BPSC’). Accordingly, he joined at Katihar and after completing a decade was granted the benefits of first ACP in the year 2005. 5. In the year 2003, he was transferred and posted in the Patna Circle -3 with additional charges of three more circles which included the districts of: – (i) Nalanda and Nawada under Bihar Circle; (ii) East & West Champaran under Motihari Circle and (iii) Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar under Muzaffarpur Circle. 6. On 15.09.2005, the news came in the Media regarding an explosion that took place in an illegal cracker factory in the residential premises of one Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian near Khusrupur Primary Health Centre under Patna City Sub-Division in the district of Patna. This explosion took several lives as also caused damage to the houses nearby. 7. Subsequently, the Labour Commissioner, Patna directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna and the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar Patna to enquire into the matter and submit a report vide letter no. 3032 dated 26.09.2005. 8. Accordingly, an enquiry took place on 29.09.2005 when the officials concerned took evidence of the people of the locality, injureds of the blast as also the neighbouring houses when it came to knowledge that Hakim Mian was allegedly engaged in the work with the help of local people/children. 9. The Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar subsequently submitted its report vide letter no. 9. The Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar subsequently submitted its report vide letter no. 599 dated 05.10.2005 stating therein that the factory was being run without any information to any official. It was in the residential premises on the Patna-Baktiyarpur road but there was no information about it. He concluded by stating and as such, no one can be held responsible for non-inspection of the premises when neither the alleged factory was registered nor any information whatsoever was made available. (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). 10. Meanwhile, the Labour Enforcement Officer and Labour Superintendent including the petitioner too had submitted their respective show cause (s) clearly stating that they had never been provided with any information whatsoever or through any other sources regarding the running of the factory in a residential premises. 11. No further development took place thereafter for years. However, in view of the fact that several lives were lost, the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi (henceforth for short ‘the NHRC’) made certain directions for grant of compensation to the aggrieved families as also to take action against erring police official/officials of the Licensing Department and to submit a report. 12. Pursuant thereto, in the year 2012, a meeting was held on 01.03.2012 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna, in the presence of Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’ as also the Principal Secretary, Home in which it was decided to initiate departmental proceedings amongst the other, against the petitioner herein. 13. This followed the resolution vide memo no. 1821 dated 28.06.2012 issued by the Secretary ‘the Department’ containing the memo of charge in ‘Prapatra Ka’ incorporating therein that the cracker factory situated in Mian Toli, Khusrupur owned by Md. Jainul @ Hakim Mian where explosion took place on 15.09.2005 causing death of 35 persons. The matter has been taken up by ‘the NHRC’ and further it was the responsibility of the Inspector of Factories to grant license to a Factory under the Factories Act as also to ensure that no factory is running without license. 14. It was further averred that the premises in which Crackers were produced falls under the categories of Factory under Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act. Even though no license was granted to the aforesaid establishment, only the Inspector of Factories is/was the man to take action against the occupier for using Child Labour in the factory. 14. It was further averred that the premises in which Crackers were produced falls under the categories of Factory under Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act. Even though no license was granted to the aforesaid establishment, only the Inspector of Factories is/was the man to take action against the occupier for using Child Labour in the factory. It was further stated that the said blast was enquired into by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Patna City. Finally, it was alleged that if the petitioner had remained vigilant and conducted timely inspection, then probably such a big accident could have been averted. It was also alleged that the power of inspection was not used by the petitioner, which amounts to lapses/negligence on his part. The memo of charge also contained three documents as evidence. These documents are /were: (a) the letter dated 23/03/10 issued by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi; (b) the inquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 14/01/06 and (c) the letter dated 17/04/12 issued by the Home(Special) Department, Bihar, Patna 15. With the aforesaid charge, the petitioner was directed to submit his statement of defence within 15 days. One Smt. Indu Singh, Deputy Secretary, Labour Resource Department was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Sri Shamsher Bahadur Singh, the then Chief Inspector of Factories (Incharge), Labour Resource Department as the Presenting Officer for the aforesaid departmental inquiry against the petitioner. (Annexure-2 to this petition). 16. The Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 07.09.2012 directed the Presenting Officer to make the documents available as requested by the petitioner by taking them from the concerned Section (Annexure-4 to this petition). 17. Further vide letter No. 862 dated 14.09.2012, the Presenting Officer, Dr. S.B. Singh, the Chief Inspector of Factories requested the Special Secretary of Section-6 of “the Department’, to provide him two documents so that the same is made available to the petitioner for the purpose of the Departmental Proceeding (Annexure-5 to the petition). 18. In his preliminary statements of defence submitted on 26.09.2012, the petitioner mentioned that the premises was not a factory under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 and there was no knowledge to any authority which include the local administration/police authorities about the said premised and it was virtually impossible to detect such activities which was/were undertaken in a clandestine manner is a residential premises. 19. 19. The petitioner further stated that storage of huge quantity of explosive without license was a criminal activity. Further, no information either by the Government authority or by any other source was/were ever brought to his notice with regard to any manufacturing process being undertaken by the owner of the house. 20. It was the further case of the petitioner that in absence of any knowledge or information, it was not possible to take action against the owner of the premises. Further, a large number of Officers have been given the power of inspection of any premise where manufacturing, sale and storage of explosive substance are done and in view of the same, singling him out for the alleged occurrence is unjustified. 21. The petitioner further submitted that even the Public Interest Litigation filed before this Hon'ble Court was disposed of without any order/observation or direction against the petitioner and/or holding him responsible for the alleged occurrence and hence the petitioner made prayer in the preliminary statements of defence to exonerate him from the charges leveled against him. 22. Later, the petitioner submitted his final statement of defence on 22.08.2013 stating therein that the charges have been leveled against him under external pressure and the same is not an independent decision of the Government i.e. it is being undertaken on the direction of ‘the NHRC’ and under such circumstances, it is not proper to initiate departmental proceeding against him ignoring the fact that the concerned Labour Superintendent and the Labour Enforcement Officer too were asked and had submitted their explanations as early as in 2005, but, the Department has picked him up for the departmental proceeding without any valid basis. He further averred that he has unblemished record of the 20 years of service and the charges have been framed after seven years of the alleged occurrence. 23. He further averred that he has unblemished record of the 20 years of service and the charges have been framed after seven years of the alleged occurrence. 23. The sum and substance of the petitioner’s defence was/were that: – (i) the charge that it was the responsibility of a Inspector of the Factories to ensure that no factory is allowed to run without a license, is incorrect; (ii) it was the duty of an occupier to seek approval for construction of factory and submit application for license; (iii) the provisions of the Bihar Factories Rules require an occupier of the factory to submit a map of the premises with an application in prescribed form for grant of license, No objection Certificate from the State Pollution Control Board, Title document of the land, and in case of restricted items, the License of the Concerned Department (i.e. in case of explosive items; Explosive License from the Concerned Department) to the Chief Inspector of Factories; (iv) mere submission of such documents would not lead to the issuance of license rather after receipt of the application with the map and the aforesaid documents, the Inspector of Factories makes verification of the application with the map submitted before him and recommends the same to the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories and when the records are approved by the Chief Inspector of Factories, a Registration Number is issued in favour of the Factory; (v) the License is issued under the signature of the Inspector of Factories; (vi) therefore, granting of license to a Factory is a collective responsibility and not an individual responsibility. The petitioner further stated that so far as the charge relating to ensuring that no Factory is running without license is concerned, the Inspector of Factories can only inspect a premises when he gets information from any source with regard to running of a factory therein; (vii) where a factory is being run in a secret manner in a residential premises without registration and without any overt sign of a factory, it was not possible to detect the same; (viii) the petitioner further clarified in his aforesaid statements of defense that so far as the alleged blast on 15.09.2005 in Khusrupur Mian Toli is concerned, admittedly, the nature of activities undertaken in the said premises was not known to the Office of the Labour Commissioner, the Factory Inspectorate or to any of its concerned Offices and/or the District Administration/Police Officials; (x) only after the alleged occurrence took place, it was found that large quantity of explosives were stored in a residential premise of Hakim Mian in which a big family of his six sons were living; (xi) subsequently, it came to the knowledge that in a secret manner some business of crackers etc. were done in the said premises which were sold in the local market; (xii) the petitioner further stated that the alleged activities were going on in a congested lane in the residential house of a person of a minority community since last about 25 years and the same was never inspected by any one during the period of which many Inspectors of Factories were posted; (xiii) therefore, it is discriminatory to single him out. The petitioner stated that at least show- cause notice ought to have been asked from all the previous Inspectors, who were posted since the last 25 years prior to the petitioner; (xiv) the petitioner further stated in his defense that it is not proper to hold him responsible for not detecting the manufacturing activity. Further, under Section- 9 of the Factories Act and under Rule-13 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950, the Inspectors of Factories have been assigned the power of inspection or for any further action only after coming to know about the Factory; (xv) however, in this case where there was no knowledge to anyone about the activity in the premises, there was no question of making any inspection in the premises; 24. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report (procured by the petitioner through RTI) vide letter no. 237 dated 22.10.2013 by which it came to the conclusion as follows: – (underline mine) 25. Thus, according to the petitioner, the enquiry Officer in his report held that the charges against the petitioner was not found proved. 26. The further case of the petitioner is that ignoring the same and without giving any reason for differing with the report so submitted, second show cause was issued vide letter no. 531 dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure-12 to the petition) under the signature of the Joint Secretary of ‘the Department’ holding that he failed to do his duty in a responsible manner which resulted into death of so many people, the same was inefficiency on his part as the factory was being run without any registration and child labour were also being used there. 27. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his reply on 19.03.2014 denying the allegation further stating that as the Inquiry Officer had found the charges having been not proved, he be exonerated of the charges (Annexure-14 to the petition). 28. However, the respondents went ahead and as the petitioner was appointed by ‘the BPSC’, sought opinion regarding proposal for his dismissal from service. ‘The BPSC’, in turn vide its letter no. 372 dated 06.05.2016 addressed to the Principal Secretary of ‘the department’ (Annexure-15 to the petition) gave his opinion as follows: – 29. Thus, ‘the BPSC’ came to the conclusion that when the Enquiry Officer has found charges against the petitioner not proved; punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate. 30. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’ in view of the opinion of ‘the BPSC’ gave his comprehensive comment on 27.05.2016 which is incorporated herein below: – 31. Thus, according to the petitioner, it was clear that the Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’ too opined that the punishment of dismissal from service is not justified and instead proposed the punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. This information was also obtained by the petitioner through the Right to Information Act (Annexure- 16 to the petition). 32. The said proposal of the Principal Secretary was also approved by the concerned Minister of ‘the Department’. 33. This information was also obtained by the petitioner through the Right to Information Act (Annexure- 16 to the petition). 32. The said proposal of the Principal Secretary was also approved by the concerned Minister of ‘the Department’. 33. The matter thereafter, went high up the ladder to the Chief Secretary, Bihar followed by the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, Bihar and ‘the Department’ was asked to review the matter and provide a fresh proposal. 34. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary once again gave another proposal on 21.06.2016 (Annexure-17 to the petition) in which it was incorporated that the petitioner was holding charge of almost seven districts in three circles and further the local Police Officers were only given minor punishment of stoppage of two increments and censure and in that background the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be justified. He as such, reiterated the earlier proposal of punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect. 35. The proposal aforesaid is/are incorporated herein below: – (underline mine) 36. Thereafter, the matter once again travelled through the Chief Secretary, Bihar to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar where decision was taken for the dismissal of the petitioner from service holding that the same has been approved by the Cabinet on 24.08.2015. The said resolution was provided to the petitioner vide memo no. 2604 dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure-19 to the petition). 37. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred review of the order in terms of Section 24 (2) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules 2005 (henceforth for short ‘the Rules’) which was rejected vide letter no. 3342 dated 06.12.2016. (Annexure-20 to the petition). 38. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 4749 of 2017 which was heard by a bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey, as his Lordship then was) and vide an order dated 04.09.2018, the orders in question were quashed on the ground that the explanation put forward by the petitioner vide second show cause was/were not considered and as such, no procedure was followed (Annexure-21 to the petition). 39. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred petition in the light of High Court’s order on 14.10.2018 but ignoring the points raised by him, once again the order of dismissal was passed stating that the Cabinet in its meeting dated 12.02.2019 has decided not to differ from the earlier decision taken. This order was communicated vide memo no. 534 dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-23 to the writ petition). This order was communicated vide memo no. 534 dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-23 to the writ petition). 40. Aggrieved, the present petition. 41. Heard the parties. 42. It is the case of the learned Senior Counsel that a bare perusal of the charges dated 12.06.2012 as also the reports submitted would show that the charge was of negligence/inefficiency on his part having failed to detect the presence of a factory in a residential premises manufacturing crackers which resulted into loss of lives. For the same, right from the Enquiry Officer to ‘the BPSC’ as also the Departmental head (duly approved by the Departmental Minister) did not held him guilty of misconduct and accordingly, a proposal for punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect was made. 43. He further submits that minor punishment was meted out to the local Police Officers whereas ignoring the proposal of the Departmental head and ‘the BPSC’, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was passed against him. 44. As per the learned Senior Counsel, in the Public Interest Litigation that was preferred before the Patna High Court, the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit was/were that the petitioner was not held responsible after the enquiry by the Chief Inspector of Factories. 45. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to an order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 which dealt with misconduct and held that error of judgment cannot be construed misconduct. 46. Learned Senior Counsel submits that at no point of time, the respondent-authorities came to the conclusion that it was misconduct. It was their consistent conclusion that there was negligence, inefficiency on his part of having failed to detect the running of factory in a residential premises. 47. He has further drawn attention to another unreported order of the Patna High Court in the case of Chandra Shekher Singh vs. State of Bihar and others (CWJC No. 55 of 2020) in which the Court held that when there was no imputation or mis-conduct or ill motive and was mere negligence in discharge of duty, the extreme punishment is uncalled for. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. 48. He thus concludes by submitting that taking into account all the aforesaid facts, the order needs to be interfered with. 49. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. 48. He thus concludes by submitting that taking into account all the aforesaid facts, the order needs to be interfered with. 49. Upon query by the Court as to why the provision of review was not availed by the petitioner this time, learned Senior counsel submits and considering the past experience as also the fact that since the decision was at the Government level, the petitioner straight away knocked the doors of this Court. 50. Mrs. Anuradha Singh, learned SC-21, on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Her contention on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 3 & 6 is/are that: – (i) on 15.09.2005, a bomb explosion took place in the residential premises of the densely populated area at Khusrupur near the Primary Health Centre which resulted into loses of 35 lives; (ii) subsequently, the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi suo moto took cognizance which ultimately resulted into departmental proceedings against the petitioner. (iii) though the Enquiry Officer gave him clean chit, the Disciplinary Authority differed with him and accordingly, he was put on second show cause; (iv) thereafter, the proposal was made for punishment of dismissal from service; (v) ‘the BPSC’ opined that the same is not proportionate to the allegation and in that backdrop, ‘the Department’ gave proposal for punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect; (vi) however, considering the gravity of charges, the Government wanted a fresh proposal; (vii) ‘the Department’ thereafter reiterated the earlier proposal of punishment of withholding of the three increments with cumulative effect; (viii) the Government thereafter differed and accordingly decision was taken for dismissal from service which resulted into issuance of the memo no. 2604 dated 01.09.2016 issued by the Joint Secretary, Labour Resource Department (Annexure-1 to the petition). 51. It is her submission that following order passed in vide CWJC No. 4749 of 2017 disposed of on 04.09.2018 by which the orders were quashed on the ground that procedure was not followed, once again the dismissal order was passed pursuant to the Cabinet’s decision dated 12.02.2019 communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 534 dated 28.02.2019. 52. She as such submits that the order is justified considering the lapses he made resulting into loss of lives. 53. 534 dated 28.02.2019. 52. She as such submits that the order is justified considering the lapses he made resulting into loss of lives. 53. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the records, the facts that emerges is/are that the petitioner while being posted in Patna Circle in 2003 was holding additional charges of three more circles comprising the districts of Nalanda, Nawada, East & West Champaran, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar which covers large area of the State. 54. An explosion took place on 15.09.2005 in the residential premises of Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian which resulted into loss of several lives as also the damage to the houses. 55. A joint enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna and the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar Patna on the direction of the Labour Commissioner, Patna. 56. They submitted a report vide memo no. 599 dated 05.10.2005 and on the basis of the evidence of the local people came to the conclusion that the factory was not having any license, no information was ever given to any officials, it was the residential premises where the explosion took place and as such, no one can be held responsible. 57. The petitioner along with other officials meanwhile also submitted their respective show causes and the matter for all practical purposes was consigned. However, it seems, years later, ‘the NHRC’ stepped into the matter whereafter a high level meeting was held on 01.03.2012 under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Bihar Patna in which decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, ‘Prapatra Ka’ was issued to him to answer to the charges as to how the presence of materials/ingredients for manufacturing of crackers was not reported by him. 58. The Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were also appointed for the proposed departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The proceedings thereafter continued. The petitioner submitted his show cause reasoning out the facts. 59. Thereafter, vide report dated 26.12.2013, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges made against the petitioner has not been proved. 60. However, differing from the said inquiry report, the petitioner was put on second show cause vide letter no. 531 dated 13.02.2014 holding that due to his irresponsible act, there were loss of lives as the factory was being run in which Child labours were also being used by the Md. 60. However, differing from the said inquiry report, the petitioner was put on second show cause vide letter no. 531 dated 13.02.2014 holding that due to his irresponsible act, there were loss of lives as the factory was being run in which Child labours were also being used by the Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian. 61. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 19.03.2014 whereafter the matter went to ‘the BPSC for its opinion which vide letter no. 372 dated 06.05.2016 after incorporating the entire facts concluded that in view of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the punishment of dismissal from services is not proportionate to the charges against him. 62. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’ too vide letter dated 27.05.2016 came to the conclusion that punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect instead of dismissal from service will suffice. This got approval by the Departmental Minister also. 63. However, the matter was considered by Hon’ble the Chief Minister, Bihar who wanted fresh proposal. Accordingly another proposal dated 21.06.2016 was submitted by the Principal Secretary of ‘the Department’ in which he reiterated the punishment of stoppage of two increments and censure further averring that punishment of dismissal cannot be justified. He also incorporated the fact that the Police Officials have been given minor punishment and as such extreme punishment of dismissal from service is unwarranted. 64. However, the Government decided otherwise which led to his dismissal which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 2604 dated 01.09.2016. The review petition preferred was also rejected vide memo no. 3342 dated 06.12.2016. 65. Following the order dated 04.09.2018 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 4749 of 2017 by which on technical ground, the dismissal orders was/were set aside, the matter was once again taken up and another dismissal order from service was passed on 12.02.2019 communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 534 dated 28.02.2019. 66. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner was holding charges of number of districts in three circles beside being posted at Patna. Further, the factory was run by Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian in his residential premises without any registration and knowledge to anyone. 67. From the record, it further appears that even the local police station which was closer to the residential premises of Md. Further, the factory was run by Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian in his residential premises without any registration and knowledge to anyone. 67. From the record, it further appears that even the local police station which was closer to the residential premises of Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian failed to check the same inasmuch as if the children were used as labour in the said factory, the activities/movement could have been taken note of by the local police station and could have acted accordingly. However, the police officials failed to do so and were given minor punishment. 68. So far as this petitioner is concerned, the consistent stand of the Inquiry Officer, ‘the BPSC’ Patna as also the Departmental Secretary duly approved by its Minister was/were that the charges levelled may come under the category of negligence on the part of the petitioner, under no circumstances, it warrants dismissal from the service. 69. Further, even after the Government wanted fresh proposal, the Secretary of the Department stuck to the ground proposing punishment against the petitioner minus his dismissal from service. 70. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) held in paragraphs 11 to 19 as follows: – 11. "Misconduct" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. as: "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of 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." "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 officeholder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act." 12. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, Reprint Edn. 1987 at p. 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. 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...." (emphasis supplied) 13. Mere error of judgment resulting in doing of negligent act does not amount to misconduct. However, in exceptional circumstances, not working diligently may be a misconduct. An action which is detrimental to the prestige of the institution may also amount to misconduct. Acting beyond authority may be a misconduct. When the office-bearer is expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the work. any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds, etc. constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. (Vide Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regl. Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, Govt. of TN. vs. K.N. Ramamurthy, Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. Acting beyond authority may be a misconduct. When the office-bearer is expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the work. any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds, etc. constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. (Vide Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regl. Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, Govt. of TN. vs. K.N. Ramamurthy, Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and SBI vs. S.N. Goyal) 14. In Govt. of A.P. vs. P. Posetty, this Court held that since acting in derogation to the prestige of the institution/body and placing his present position in any kind of embarrassment may amount to misconduct, for the reason, that such conduct may ultimately lead that the delinquent had behaved in a manner which is unbecoming of an incumbent of the post. 15. In M.M. Malhotra vs. Union of India, this Court explained as under. (SCC p. 362. para 17) 17. ....It has, therefore, to be noted that the word "misconduct is not capable of precise definition. But at the same time though incapable of precise definition, the word 'misconduct' on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. The act complained of must bear a forbidden quality or character and its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subjectmatter and the context wherein b the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve." A similar view has been reiterated in Baldev Singh Gandhi vs. State of Punjab 16. Conclusions about the absence or lack of personal qualities in the incumbent do not amount to misconduct holding the person concerned liable for punishment. (See Union of India vs. J. Ahmed10) 17. It is also a settled legal proposition that misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of the misconduct and the court must examine as to whether misconduct has been Jetrimental to the public interest. (Vide Bank of India vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin¹¹.) 18. The expression "misconduct" has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character. It may be synonymous as misdemeanor in propriety and mismanagement. (Vide Bank of India vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin¹¹.) 18. The expression "misconduct" has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, unlawful behaviour, 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. 19. Further, the expression "misconduct" has to be construed and understood in reference to the subject-matter and context wherein the term occurs taking into consideration the scope and object of the statute which is being construed. Misconduct is to be measured in the terms of the nature of misconduct and it should be viewed with the consequences of misconduct as to whether it has been detrimental to the public interest”. 71. Further, in the case of Chandra Shekher Singh (supra), a bench of Patna High Court too held that for mere negligence, the extreme punishment is uncalled for. 72. Having gone through the entire materials/facts, this Court holds that the views of ‘the BPSC, Patna and the Secretary of ‘the Department’ was/were correct. When the consistent stand of the respondents was/were that at best it can be held as ‘negligence,; the major punishment of dismissal from service was unwarranted. Further, though the Government differed with the Inquiry Officer, ‘the BPSC’, Patna as also the Secretary of ‘the Department’, it failed to assign reason. 73. On perusal of the response of the State as incorporated in the counter affidavit, nowhere it has been averred that the respondent-authorities came to the conclusion that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner rather it is/was their consistent stand that negligence on the part of the petitioner of having not detected the running of the factory in the residential premises led to the unfortunate accident. 74. The petitioner was given charge of several districts of the State under three circles, one of which (West Champaran) was 200 Kms. away. 74. The petitioner was given charge of several districts of the State under three circles, one of which (West Champaran) was 200 Kms. away. Expecting him to do housewise enquiry to ascertain whether any factory is being run in it or not while turning a blind eye towards the role of the District Administration/Police Officials who were present on the ground zero cannot be justified. 75. Loss of innocent lives due to the illegal act of Md. Jainul Haque @ Hakim Mian is/was unfortunate but to single out an official and crucify him is equally unjustified. 76. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court comes to only one conclusion; the punishment meted out to the petitioner i.e. the dismissal from service is/was inconsistent with the charges made against him and thus it needs interference. 77. In the circumstances, the memo no. 534 dated 28.02.2019 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, of ‘the Department’ Govt. of Bihar (Annexure-23) stands quashed. 78. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 79. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.