JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J.: This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 5.9.89 passed by Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the petitioner questioning the order of punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him by an order dated 8th September, 1983 passed by the Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal. The learned trial judge upon taking into consideration the factual aspect of the matter and upon perusal of the records of the enquiry proceedings produced before him came to the conclusion that there was no procedural irregularities committed by the respondents in the matter of holding the departmental enquiry. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised three contentions in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel firstly submitted that from the evidence as adduced it appears that although the petitioner has been found guilty of demanding money from various persons it was on Sri Nemai Pandey who used to collect and demand the money from' the concerned persons for mutation of their names and such act is not a misconduct within the meaning of the provision of the Service Rules. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel. Asking for gratification illegally, in our opinion, is a very serious misconduct. The learned Counsel contended that the disciplinary authority was biased. No such plea has been taken before the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge has categorically held that there has been a clear finding that the petitioner had extorted money in a calculated manner from the members of the public while disposing of L.T. Notices, Mutation petition etc. in course of his official tour at some Mouza and those allegations were found to be true and correct. 3. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not concerned with the adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence. Moreover this Court is not concerned with the merit of the order. This Court is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merit of the decision. Thus the power of judicial review of this court is confined to procedural irregularities in the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding. Moreover this Court is not concerned with the merit of the order. This Court is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merit of the decision. Thus the power of judicial review of this court is confined to procedural irregularities in the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding. As nothing has been pointed out before us that any of the aforementioned criteria exists for exercise of our jurisdiction we do not find any merit in the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. 5. There will be no order as to costs. Satyanarayan Chakrabarty, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.