15. Violation of Rule 3(1) Unbecoming of Govt servant, Participation of strike, Honest mistakes & negligence

71. Charge of the violation of Rule 3(1) of the Conduct Rules should not be vague

Mere violation of a general provision such as contained in Rule 3.(1) does no constitute a misconduct and no penalty can be imposed for such violation.

[A.L.Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 S.C. 1361.] 

72. An Act unbecoming of an employee

Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules merely asks Government servants not to do anything which is unbecoming of a Government servant. What is unbecoming can always be ascertained having regard to the entirety of the conduct and that the sub-rule merely asks him to keep himself within the bonds of administrative decency. It was further held "given common sense" and a sense of decency, it will not be difficult to judge whether, what conduct amounts to unbecoming conduct.

[ Mahendra Kumar v. Union of India (1984), SLJ 34 (A.P.) (1985), SLR 181.]

73. Where an employee has participated in a strike which is not illegal, - - it is not an unbecoming act on his part nor does it amount to lack of) devotion to duty.

[ Suraj Prasad v. Northern Railway, AIR 1967 All. 457.]

74. Indisciplined acts Misconduct

Intimidation to a superior officer to withdraw a report made against the person concerned under threat of assault or insubordination to a superior officer are acts of indiscipline and gross misbehavior.

[Union of India, v. B.C. Gupta, 1980 (2) SLR (Del.).]

75. Acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistakes committed by a Government servant cannot be treated as misconduct

In the instant case, it is only, if at all, errors of judgment or mistake which cannot be treated as misconduct in the context of the above.

Even if it is accepted that the applicant was negligent and careless as alleged by the respondents that would not constitute a misconduct.

It is curious to note that it is nowhere mentioned as to what was the resultant damage caused because of such negligence or carelessness. From the averment in the charge-sheet, the degree of culpability as observed by the Supreme Court cannot be assessed.

[Purushottam Sadashiv Kakirde v. Union of the India and others; 0.A. No.426 of 1991; decided on 25.1.1995; Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench)

 Your's Kayveeyes