ORDER This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) against the judgment and order dated 25th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 5121 of 1997. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner, an Accounts Clerk in the Board, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 4th October 1996 made by the Board dismissing the writ petitioner from service on the charge of temporary misappropriation of the Board money. 3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner on 10th January 1991. It was alleged that on 29th June 1989, the writ petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 15,214.51 from one Vijay Kumar, Junior Accounts Clerk at Balia, which the writ petitioner was supposed to enter in the Cash Book and to deposit in the Bank account of the Board. The writ petitioner did not enter the said amount in the Cash Book until 16th July 1990 and returned the same to the said Vijay Kumar on 17th July 1990. A similar charge was made in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,235/- received by the writ petitioner from the aforesaid Vijay Kumar on 31st July 1989. The said charge was replied to by the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, along with the money (cash collected from the consumer) the said Vijay Kumar was supposed to forward the cash receipt and the Daily Collection Register. As the said Vijay Kumar did not forward the Daily Collection Register, the writ petitioner could not enter the said money in the Cash Register; nor did he deposit the said money in the Bank. All along, the money was lying in the office. The petitioner had not used the said money for personal gain. 4. After holding due enquiry, the enquiry officer opined that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. In view of the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority served a notice to the writ petitioner to show cause why should he not be held guilty and why should he not be punished for the same. After receiving the reply from the writ petitioner, under the impugned order dated 4th October 1996, the petitioner was visited with the above referred punishment of dismissal from service. After receiving the reply from the writ petitioner, under the impugned order dated 4th October 1996, the petitioner was visited with the above referred punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the Writ Petition. 5. The petition was contested by the Board. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition. According to the learned single Judge, the order of punishment was cryptic and the reply submitted by the writ petitioner was not taken into consideration. The learned single Judge has also relied upon the evidence of the Assistant Engineer (departmental witness no. 7). The learned single Judge has held that the Assistant Engineer did not depose that the money in question was not lying in the cash box. In view of the said evidence of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant could not have been held guilty of imputation of charge made against him. In view of the said finding recorded by the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of punishment dated 4th October 1996 and has directed the Board to pay arrears of salary to the writ petitioner from the date of his dismissal from service till 31st January 2009, the date on which the writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation. The Board has further been directed to pay arrears of terminal dues of the petitioner. The Board has, however, been allowed to charge interest on the aforesaid sums which remained undeposited for around one year. Feeling aggrieved, the Board has preferred this Appeal. 6. We have been taken through the departmental proceedings, the charge sheet, the reply to the charge sheet, the evidence, the enquiry officer’s report, the second show cause notice and the reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the writ petitioner. 7. In his reply to the charge sheet, the writ petitioner did admit the receipt of the aforesaid sums of Rs. 15,214.51 and Rs. 10,235/- from the aforesaid Vijay Kumar on 29th June 1989 and on 31st July 1989 respectively. He also admitted that he did not enter the said amounts in the Cash Register and that he did not deposit the same in the Bank; instead on 31st July 1990, he returned the said amounts to the aforesaid Vijay Kumar. Thus, the major part of the charge levelled against the petitioner had been admitted. He also admitted that he did not enter the said amounts in the Cash Register and that he did not deposit the same in the Bank; instead on 31st July 1990, he returned the said amounts to the aforesaid Vijay Kumar. Thus, the major part of the charge levelled against the petitioner had been admitted. The only defence that the petitioner took was that the aforesaid Vijay Kumar had not forwarded the Daily Collection Register along with the aforesaid amounts; that the said Vijay Kumar had assured the writ petitioner to forward the Daily Collection Register within a few days but he did not do so. The said Vijay Kumar had been examined in the disciplinary proceedings by the department as witness no. 3. He did not support the defence taken by the writ petitioner. He, in his deposition, did admit that the Daily Collection Register was not forwarded along with the aforesaid amounts but, according to the said Vijay Kumar for the sum of Rs. 15,214.51 he had forwarded the Daily Collection Register the very next day, i.e. on 30th June 1989; and for the sum of Rs. 10,235/- he had forwarded the Daily Collection Register two days later. The said Vijay Kumar having not supported the writ petitioner, his defense should necessarily fail. The evidence of the Assistant Engineer also has been considered by the enquiry officer. Having considered the evidence on record, the enquiry officer has recorded finding of guilt against the writ petitioner. Having regard to the nature of guilt proved against the writ petitioner, the Board has, in its discretion, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 8. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in reappreciating the evidence on record and in holding that the evidence of the Assistant Engineer was not correctly appreciated by the enquiry officer. We may remind ourselves that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence in the departmental proceedings or to reevaluate its probative value and to record its own finding. The learned single Judge has also held that the reply to the enquiry report submitted by the writ petitioner was not considered by the disciplinary authority. We have perused the reply submitted by the writ petitioner. We must say that in the said reply, the writ petitioner had repeated his defence. The learned single Judge has also held that the reply to the enquiry report submitted by the writ petitioner was not considered by the disciplinary authority. We have perused the reply submitted by the writ petitioner. We must say that in the said reply, the writ petitioner had repeated his defence. In absence of any mitigating factor/s brought on the record by the writ petitioner or any new submission made by the writ petitioner, the disciplinary authority was not required to elaborate on the said reply and the repeated submissions. The submissions made in the said reply were already considered in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority. A fresh scrutiny was not called for. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the learned single Judge has erred in reappreciating and reevaluating the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and in recording his own finding. Having regard to the nature of the guilt proved against the writ petitioner, the order of punishment of dismissal from service should not call for interference by this Court. In absence of any procedural flaw in the disciplinary proceedings, interference by this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, is not warranted. 10. Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 5121 of 1997 is set aside. CWJC No. 5121 of 1997 is dismissed. 11. Interlocutory Application No. 6748 of 2011 stands disposed of. 12. The writ petitioner may, having regard to his past clean service, make a representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company (the successor of the Bihar State Electricity Board) within one month from today in respect of the quantum of the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner. If such a representation is made by the writ petitioner, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company will consider the same and decide within three months from the date of the receipt of the representation. It is clarified that the decision of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company on such representation will be final and binding to the writ petitioner. Such decision shall not give a fresh cause of action to the writ petitioner.