JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The writ petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of the charge-sheet, enquiry report, enquiry proceedings, order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as peon in West Bengal State Electricity Board in 1973 and was posted at Sonamukhi, District Bankura. Ultimately, he was designated as Record Supplier and was posted at Jaldhaka Hydel Project in the year 1999. In course of his employment, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge-sheet under Regulations 61 and 63 of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulation vide Memo No. AS/V-1332/(GS)/1138 dated 26.06.1999 with as many as 8 charges of gratification which runs as follows : The 1st charge-sheet is taking money for giving employment to one Kartik Roy, who is a neighbour of the relative of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner took the money amounting to Rs. 2,000/- in presence of wife and son of Kartik Roy with an assurance to give employment. Since, after taking money, the writ petitioner did nothing. The said Kartik Roy after waiting for a long time, requested the writ petitioner to refund the said gratification money of Rs. 2,000/-. Instead of refunding the money, the petitioner manhandled the said Kartik Roy and threatened him with dire consequences of life. Accordingly, he cheated Kartik Roy. 3. Charge No. II is again taking money from one Sri Santi Ranjan Roy Gupta to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-. The said sum was paid by two installments one by Rs. 2,000/- and the other is Rs. 1,000/-. After making payment, Sri Roy Gupta contacted the writ petitioner regarding his employment at Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office. The petitioner handed over a letter written on Board's prescribed form bearing No. Cal-1944 BDN-1974 dated 29.03.1994 addressed to Sri Roygupta containing written, information regarding employment of Sri Roygupta under the Board. Being suspicious about the correctness of the letter, Sri Roygupta discussed with some other members of the Board and he came to know that the letter was false and contained wrong information. Later on, petitioner confessed that he typed the said letter privately in order to show Sri Roygupta that his case of employment was under consideration of the higher authority of the Board. The letters wrote by the writ petitioner bears his name as "Ghatterjee Da", "Chatterjee Babu". Later on, petitioner confessed that he typed the said letter privately in order to show Sri Roygupta that his case of employment was under consideration of the higher authority of the Board. The letters wrote by the writ petitioner bears his name as "Ghatterjee Da", "Chatterjee Babu". The writ petitioner also issued hand tics’ giving false assurance of providing employment under the Board was given to Sri Roygupta and the petitioner, thus, cheated the said Sri Roygupta. 4. Charge No : III - One Sri Sukhen Meta of Nutaneram, District Bankura submitted an application to Sonamukhi Constn. (Dist.) Sub-Division Office for having STW connection. After waiting for reasonable period, Sri Meta came to the Sonamukhi Sub-Division Office to know the position of his connection. During his visit, Sri Meta came in contact with the writ petitioner, Sri Sridam Chatterjee, Record Supplier of the Office. The writ petitioner introduced himself to Sri Meta as Surveyor as well as an Officer of that Office and he demanded illegal gratification from Sri Meta for early arranging of STW connection and consequently, Sri Meta gave a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the writ petitioner. After receipt of such gratification, he came to the village of Sri Meta and made a survey of the line of Sri Meta to establish that he had authority to allow the service line. On that date, the writ petitioner once again accepted gratification of Rs. 3,000/- from Sri Meta. As no arrangement for STW connection was made, Sri Meta visited Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office and met the petitioner. The petitioner expressed his inability to arrange for STW connection. Sri Meta demanded refund of Rs. 4,000/- from the writ petitioner. On demand, the writ petitioner refunded Rs. 2,000/- but the balance Rs. 2,000/- is still to be refunded. Having knowledge about the fact that he had no power to effect any service connection, he demanded and accepted gratification for his personal gain. 5. Charge No. IV - the writ petitioner once again took Rs. 2,000/- at the first instance from one Sri Sasthidhar Bagdi and others being villagers of Chotonarayanpur, P.S. Sonamukhi, District-Bankura, who made application for electrification of their village giving assurance to them to give such service to the village and thereafter again took Rs. 3,000/- from one Sri Bagdi for the same reason. 2,000/- at the first instance from one Sri Sasthidhar Bagdi and others being villagers of Chotonarayanpur, P.S. Sonamukhi, District-Bankura, who made application for electrification of their village giving assurance to them to give such service to the village and thereafter again took Rs. 3,000/- from one Sri Bagdi for the same reason. After waiting two months, Sri Bagdi again met the writ petitioner and requested him for early issuance of quotations, but neither he did not hand over any quotation, nor he was able to show any primary evidence to Sri Bagdi about electrification of their village. After some days, Sri Bagdi met Sri Santanu Sarkar, the then Assistant Engineer, Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub Division when Sri Sarkar informed him that electrification work of their village has been approved by the Divisional Engineer's Office in normal course. 6. Afterwards, Sri Bagdi came to know that none had to deposit any money prior to electrification of any village and the writ petitioner in fact cheated him as the writ petitioner had no role in issuing electrification order to that village. 7. Thus, it appears that the writ petitioner with best of his knowledge cheated Sri Bagdi for his personal gain. 8. Charge No : V - One Sri Sahadev Paul and Gurupada Ghosh of village Paijoure, District-Bankura attended Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office on 20th August, 1998 for submitting application for STW connection in their lands for cultivating purpose. As the writ petitioner was well known to them, they discussed with them about STW connection. The petitioner assured them that he would arrange this connection and in exchange demanded Rs. 3,750/- from them. The writ petitioner also demanded Rs. 10,000/- from them subject to erection of P.C.C Poles for their STW connection. Sri Paul and Sri Ghosh paid Rs. 3750/- to the writ petitioner. After waiting for a month, they used to visit at Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office and came to know that no action was taken for the same. After discussion at the office, they came to understand that they have been cheated by the writ petitioner. The informed the episode to Sri Santanu Sarkar, the then Assistant Engineer of the Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office and requested him for taking necessary action for refund of Rs. 3,750/-. After some days, the writ petitioner refunded Rs. 2,000/- to Sri Paul but the balance amount of Rs. The informed the episode to Sri Santanu Sarkar, the then Assistant Engineer of the Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Division Office and requested him for taking necessary action for refund of Rs. 3,750/-. After some days, the writ petitioner refunded Rs. 2,000/- to Sri Paul but the balance amount of Rs. 1,750/- was kept with him, thus cheated them. The writ petitioner for his personal gain demanded and accepted the same giving false assurance to those persons and cheated them. 9. Charge No. VI : Again it is STW connection in the name of mother- in-law of one Sri Partha Pratim Mondal of Vill. Narayanpur. While visiting for such connection, he came in touch with the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner introduced himself as an officer by the said office. Illegal gratification was demanded by the writ petitioner for such connection. Initially, the writ petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 2,800/- from Sri Mondal as the price of wires and other accessories. Sri Mondal gave the said amount of Rs. 2,800/- sometimes in October, 1996. There was no arrangement for providing STW connection in favour of the mother-in-law of Sri Mondal. Therefore, he demanded refund of the amount of illegal gratification, which was earlier accepted by the writ petitioner. Finally, when Sri Mondal informed the writ petitioner that he will take up the matter with the police. The writ petitioner, being frightened, requested Sri Mondal not to move to the police Authority and refunded a sum of Rs. 1,800/- to Sri Mondal although he accepted Rs. 2,800/- as illegal gratification with a false assurance and kept Rs. 1,000/- with him for his personal gain and cheated Sri Partha Pratim Mondal. 10. Charge No. VII : He also demanded Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for five nos. connections to be given for five submersible pumps to five persons of Village Deogaria, District - Bankura. He took Rs. 7000/- on 7th September, 1998 as 1st installment. Thereafter, 2nd installment amounting to Rs. 1,500/- was also paid to the writ petitioner. The balance amount of Rs. 6,500/- was stated to be accepted by the petitioner after dropping the poles to the sites. After coming to know that the petitioner had no such power to effect any service connection, the five complainant repeatedly demanded refund of the money illegally accepted by the petitioner, but he did not refund the amount. The balance amount of Rs. 6,500/- was stated to be accepted by the petitioner after dropping the poles to the sites. After coming to know that the petitioner had no such power to effect any service connection, the five complainant repeatedly demanded refund of the money illegally accepted by the petitioner, but he did not refund the amount. The writ petitioner, knowing fully well that he had no authority to arrange for new connection, demanded Rs. 15,000/- and accepted Rs. 8,500/- as illegal gratification for his personal gain. 11. Charge No. VIII : Again it is a case of arranging STW connection. Sri Chatterjee introduced himself as an officer of the Board, offered them that he would arrange for their STW connection in exchange of gratification. Sri Chatterjee demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 32,500/- from them and a sum of Rs. 76,000/- as quotation money. The petitioner took a sum of Rs. 10,100/- from those persons at his residence in October, 1998. The petitioner advised Sk. Naser Ali and Others to come to Sonamukhi Construction, 'D' Sub-Divisional Office with Rs. 78,000/- after puja vacation of 1998. After Durga Puja, Sk. Naser Ali & Ors. attended' Sonamukhi Construction Sub-Division Office with a sum of Rs. 78,000/- for handing over to the petitioner as quotation money. At the time of discussion, they came to know that the petitioner had no power to serve any quotation to them and that they had been cheated by Sri Chatterjee, Record Supplier of Sonamukhi Construction 'D' Sub-Divisional Office. The petitioner being well aware demanded and accepted gratification amounting to Rs. 10,000/- from Sk. Naser Ali & Others for his personal gain and with ulterior motive. 12. In the said charge-sheet, it was stated that such conduct of the writ petitioner, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and tantamounts to an act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 38 and 61(p) of WBSEB Employees' Regulations. It also appears that list of documents by which and the list of witness by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained are enclosed in Annexure II & III. The petitioner was called upon to show cause with regard to the charges framed against him within 30 days of the receipt of the Memorandum before the disciplinary authority. 13. The petitioner was called upon to show cause with regard to the charges framed against him within 30 days of the receipt of the Memorandum before the disciplinary authority. 13. It also revealed that xerox copies of documents as listed in the Annexure II are enclosed to the charge-sheet it was also informed to the delinquent employee that if he fails to submit his reply to the show cause, which will be treated to be written statement of his defence on or before the date specified in para 2 of the charge-sheet, the matter will be proceeded ex parte. 14. After receiving the charge-sheet, the writ petitioner submitted his reply dated 2nd August, 1999. 15. The writ petitioner in his reply stated that he does not know the persons named in the charge-sheet and further he denied the charges. It was stated that the allegations are fabricated in a "plan-way" and levelled against him without any basis and with ulterior motive to malign him by a group of miscreants for the ends of their vested interest. The documents which were produced are highly questionable. The endorsement of some of the fake chits and statements are highly questionable and were made against his free-will in fear of possible worse incident. Since he was alone without any support, he had to make such declaration as per interrogation on 12th April, 1999 in the head office, Calcutta, in terms of a letter issued by vigilance. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing of the charges and allegations. 16. After filing reply, date for holding enquiry was fixed by the concerned enquiry officer and the writ petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding. In the enquiry report it was recorded that initially the writ petitioner remained absent for long on the ground of illness. He appeared first time on 5th April, 2000. He pleaded not guilty and stood by defence. At the same time, he also begged pardon. The enquiry officer having found him in a disturbed state of mental health allowed him time for appointing a defence assistant so that he could be defended properly. In spite of such opportunity the writ petitioner could not appoint any defence assistance. Again hearing started on 18th October, 2000 in his presence. After examination of one witness the petitioner filed an application and pleaded for mercy admitting all the illegal or irregular things done by him. In spite of such opportunity the writ petitioner could not appoint any defence assistance. Again hearing started on 18th October, 2000 in his presence. After examination of one witness the petitioner filed an application and pleaded for mercy admitting all the illegal or irregular things done by him. The enquiry officer gave him precaution and allowed time till 28th November, 2000. On that date he remained absent. The case was fixed for further evidence. He took time for health. On 8th March, 2001 he appeared and again pleaded guilty in addition to what he wrote on 18th October, 2000. The enquiry officer repeated the caution again on that date and thereafter accepted his plea of guilt recording at the same time his demeanour and other extraneous pleas. On the basis of categorical admission to all the charges framed against the petitioner the enquiry officer found him guilty of offence like collecting money from different persons on false promise for his personal gain and therefore, liable for action for misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 38 and 61(p) of W.B.S.E.B. Rules. The enquiry officer made some suggestions to the disciplinary authority to consider his state of health and mental condition while awarding punishment. The enquiry report was supplied and a second show-cause notice dated 17th July, 2001 was also served to the petitioner. 17. It was recorded in the show-cause notice that the enquiry officer has given repeated caution about the consequences of confession of guilt and allowed him enough time to rethink the matter before submission of such confession of guilt. But the petitioner prayed for pardoning him upon confession of his guilt unconditionally and free from any caution. 18. Against the second show-cause notice the writ petitioner replied and again prayed for pardoning him. The reply was given by him on 1st August, 2001. The writ petitioner denied the charges and also prayed for de novo enquiry. However, the disciplinary authority considering the enquiry report and reply to the second show-cause passed an order for removal from service. Against the order of removal the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority also confirmed the order of removal. Against both the said orders and the charge-sheet the writ petitioner moved this writ application. 19. Mr. Against the order of removal the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority also confirmed the order of removal. Against both the said orders and the charge-sheet the writ petitioner moved this writ application. 19. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would contend that the writ petitioner has, in fact, lost his mental equilibrium and this fact is available from the enquiry officer's report. Although he has admitted his guilt, although he took time, but later on he denied and, therefore, he ought to have granted opportunity to contest the case. He would contend that the writ petitioner was removed from service without following fair procedure. According to him, denovo enquiry proceedings should have been started by the respondent authorities considering the findings of the enquiry officer's report. Mr. Banerjee cited a decision reported in (2010) 3 SCC 463 (Angad Das v. Union of India & Ors.). In para 1 of this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the authority must be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human compassion. 20. He also submitted that in view of mental state of the writ petitioner, the respondent authorities should have been acted with compassion. Mr. Banerjee then relied upon another decision reported in 2006 (1) CHN 297 (Ashis Kr. Das v. Rekha Mukherjee) wherein under paragraph 13 it was held that the admission is never a piece of findings and can be explained, it does not conclusively bind a party unless it amounts to an estoppel. Value of an admission has to be determined by keeping in view the circumstances in which it was made and to whom. A mere failure to object cannot be placed on a footing higher than an admission. 21. He also relied on two other judgments. One is reported in (2010)4 SCC 491 (Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v Rampal Singh Bisen), relevant paragraphs are 22 to 34 and the other one is reported in (1996) 9 SCC 322 (State of Punjab & Ors. v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy), the relevant paragraph is 24. 22. Mr. Banerjee would contend that the mental disbalance is a factor to be considered. Although written admission is given but that should have been ignored considering the mental state of the delinquent employee and there should have been fresh enquiry. 23. Mr. v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy), the relevant paragraph is 24. 22. Mr. Banerjee would contend that the mental disbalance is a factor to be considered. Although written admission is given but that should have been ignored considering the mental state of the delinquent employee and there should have been fresh enquiry. 23. Mr. Banerjee would contend that no document was supplied to the petitioner. Vigilance report was not supplied and, therefore, enquiry proceeding was vitiated. He also relied upon a judgment reported in (1994) 5 SCC 118 (Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of A.P.). The relevant paragraphs in this judgment are 3, 4 & 5. The other judgment cited by Mr. Banerjee is reported in (1975) 1 SCC 155 (The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram) in this judgment the relevant paragraphs are 7 & 8. 24. According to Mr. Banerjee, statements recorded, not supplied. There is irregularity in the process of holding enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry is vitiated and should be quashed. Mr. Banerjee further cited three other decisions on the scope of interference of the Court in writ jurisdiction. He cited one decision reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 (Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.). He also cited two other decisions on the point of denial of examination of witness. The two other decisions are reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan) and AIR 1959 SC 1111 (Phulbari Tea Estate v. Workmen). Mr. Banerjee also cited several other decisions on the duty of the enquiry officer and for applying fair procedure in disciplinary proceedings. He also cited some decisions on doctrine of proportionality. 25. Mr. Panja, learned Counsel for the respondent authorities submitted that on four occasions the writ petitioner confessed his guilt in writing. Mr. Panja pointed out a plain reading of enquiry officer's report would show that the writ petitioner was given opportunity to engage a Counsel on his behalf. When before the enquiry officer, the writ petitioner admitted his guilt, the enquiry officer allowed more than four months time to consider the effect of such admission and subsequently, the writ petitioner appeared and confessed his guilt before the enquiry officer repeatedly and considering the said acceptance of guilt by the delinquent employee, the concerned officer came to a conclusion that the charges are confessed and proved against the delinquent employee/writ petitioner herein. Mr. Mr. Panja submitted that a person who had appeared before the enquiry officer, he was given opportunity to engage somebody as his defence Counsel, but did not accept the same. Thereafter, the writ petitioner appeared and confessed his guilt by writing. The writ petitioner was given time to consider the effect of such confession. Even in spite of that, the writ petitioner again in writing confessed his guilt under no circumstance it could be said that he lost his mental equilibrium. Mr. Panja submitted that not a single scrap of paper nor even a prescription was submitted either before the enquiry officer or before any authority in support of his mental disbalance or loosing mental equilibrium. Mr. Panja submitted that it is a natural human conduct when a person after committing such type of serious offences found himself in difficulty and he may be disturbed to some extent but that cannot be termed as "loosing of mental balance" and/or "mental equilibrium". He submitted that loosing of mental equilibrium is something serious. 26. There is no record, nothing except one line from the enquiry officer that the delinquent employee was found in a disturbed state of mental health which, however, do not prove and/or support the contention of Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the concerned employee lost his mental equilibrium in course of the disciplinary proceedings or any time before or at the time of holding enquiry. Mr. Panja submitted that the writ petitioner gave first confession in writing in Bengali on 18th October, 2000. Thereafter, he gave his second and third confession, written in English on 8th March, 2001 and on 3rd June, 2001 respectively. The last confession, which is fourth in number, was given by the writ petitioner in Bengali in May, 2003. Mr. Panja submitted that on all four occasions, the writ petitioner had confessed his guilt and there could not be any scope for holding any further enquiry either denovo or otherwise for giving any further chance to the writ petitioner. Mr. Panja submits that medical certificates whatever the writ petitioner filed are relating to his wife and no such certificate was ever filed which shows the writ petitioner's mental state of equilibrium is lost. Mr. Panja submitted that several occasions time was taken and lastly the writ petitioner appeared and on the basis of his confession charges were framed against him. Panja submits that medical certificates whatever the writ petitioner filed are relating to his wife and no such certificate was ever filed which shows the writ petitioner's mental state of equilibrium is lost. Mr. Panja submitted that several occasions time was taken and lastly the writ petitioner appeared and on the basis of his confession charges were framed against him. Mr. Panja submitted that the disciplinary authority had carefully considered the plea of loosing mental equilibrium and has come to a definite conclusion in that regard. The writ petitioner was served with second show cause notice and opportunity was given to him to give reply. The delinquent employee gave reply and ultimately, he was awarded punishment "removal from service". Mr. Panja cited a judgment in support of his contention that there would be nothing wrong in the enquiry report and to take a decision when there is spontaneous acceptance and confession of charges against the delinquent employee. The judgment cited by Mr. Panja is reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 (Chairman and MD VSP v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu), the relevant para is 8. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court referred Section 58 of the Evidence Act and explained the consequences of confession. He also cited another decision reported in (2004) 6 SCC 325 (Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Giridharilal Yadav relevant paragraphs are 11, 17 and 20 on the point that the facts which are admitted need not be proved. Mr. Panja submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court have clearly held that there is no necessity of proving a fact which has been accepted by the delinquent employee. In another judgment, which is cited by Mr. Panja, it was held that the appellate authority need riot give elaborate reason when confirming or affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Mr. Panja would contend that sufficient opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner for considering and taking a decision about such acceptance of guilt. According to Mr. Panja, after confession, one need not produce any witness for cross-examine. He also submits that the writ petitioner has come up with an improved case, which has not made out before the disciplinary authority or before the appellate authority. There should not have any ground, which he has not taken before the concerned authorities. According to Mr. Panja, after confession, one need not produce any witness for cross-examine. He also submits that the writ petitioner has come up with an improved case, which has not made out before the disciplinary authority or before the appellate authority. There should not have any ground, which he has not taken before the concerned authorities. Therefore, there was no decision on those points by the disciplinary Authority and there is no scope to scrutinise and/or examine those points before this Hon'ble Court for the first time. Mr. Panja also submits that it is not on the very first day the enquiry officer close the enquiry proceedings rather one witness was produced and examined and he was cross-examined by the employee concerned and thereafter he gave his confession. Therefore, there is no scope to reexamine and/or to proceed any other witness in the enquiry proceedings any further. Mr. Panja submits that law does not require that even in spite of admission of guilt by the delinquent employee, the enquiry proceedings should be continued for no one's benefit and for having a further proof, even in spite of such admission by the delinquent employee himself. He submits that the principles of Section 58 of the Evidence Act clearly attracted in the case of the writ petitioner. He submits that once admitted guilt need not be proved. This is the basic plea. Therefore, there was no necessity to proceed any further witness. He denied that any violation of natural justice is there. Accordingly, the writ petition should be dismissed. 27. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated that the mental state of the delinquent employee was disbalanced and he lost his mental equilibrium. Therefore, further proceedings should be initiated and the writ petitioner should have been allowed to cross- examine witness. He submitted that there is a clear violation of regulation and there is also violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority including the enquiry officer's report should be set aside. 28. Heard the Counsel appearing for the parties. 29. The main point of argument as advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner by Mr. Banerjee is relating to loss of mental equilibrium of the delinquent employee. 30. Will discuss and decide the said point at the first instance. 31. I have perused the pleadings. 28. Heard the Counsel appearing for the parties. 29. The main point of argument as advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner by Mr. Banerjee is relating to loss of mental equilibrium of the delinquent employee. 30. Will discuss and decide the said point at the first instance. 31. I have perused the pleadings. There is no prescription nor medical document or any other document showing the treatment of the writ petitioner which will prove that the writ petitioner lost his mental equilibrium at the relevant point of time, when the enquiry proceedings were held. It appears from records that in course of hearing on 18th October, 2000, the writ petitioner cross-examined the witness produced by the Authority and he also submitted an application pleaded for mercy, admitted all the illegalities and irregularities done by him. The concerned enquiry officer gave him necessary protection and allowed him sufficient time to reconsider such acceptance of guilt. On the next date the petitioner remained absent. The case was adjourned for further evidence. Later on he again admitted his guilt and again took time on the ground of health on 8th March, 2001. Then he appeared and again pleaded his guilt in writing in addition to the previous one. The enquiry officer cautioned him against such confession. However, he accepted his plea of guilt recording at the same time his demeanour and other extraneous pleas. 32. In my view, the facts disclosed and the facts revealed in the enquiry report did not show any loss of mental equilibrium of the delinquent employee. In this case, the concerned employee was repeatedly cautioned about the consequences of such admission, but he repeatedly admitted his guilt at least on four occasions and prayed for mercy which cannot be said to be loss of mental equilibrium without any sufficient proof. This Court is not impressed by one line observation of the enquiry officer who found him in a disturbed state of mental health. Therefore, on this point, the argument advanced by Mr. Banerjee fails and this point is decided against the petitioner. 33. The next point of argument canvassed by Mr. Banerjee as regards the holding of enquiry without giving opportunity and without following procedure is now dealt with. 34. Therefore, on this point, the argument advanced by Mr. Banerjee fails and this point is decided against the petitioner. 33. The next point of argument canvassed by Mr. Banerjee as regards the holding of enquiry without giving opportunity and without following procedure is now dealt with. 34. I find that the respondent authorities have given sufficient opportunity and followed the procedures which are required to be followed for holding such enquiry in case of a delinquent employee. Charge-sheet was issued with the list of documents to be relied upon and the list of witnesses to be examined. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet. He never raised any objection about non-supply of any of the documents nor he complained against alleged non-disclosure of the name of the witness nor he has complained that he was not given any opportunity of inspection to any of the records as required. These are all improved in the writ petition for the first time which is not permissible in law. Since those points are not taken, argued for a conclusion before the Authority, there is no decision on the same and therefore, there is no scope for adjudicating the same. It is needless to mention that no law in service jurisprudence does permit the same. Therefore, this point also decided against the petitioner. 35. I do not find any wrong on the side of the respondent authorities while conducting the enquiry proceedings and I safely conclude that the Authorities have proceeded in a fair manner in accordance with the rules and procedures and also upon giving all opportunities to the petitioner and, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 36. Disciplinary proceedings were started on 13th December, 1999 and ended on 9th April, 2001, within that period, the enquiry officer granted the employee concerned several opportunities. On few occasions, he was absent, thereafter, he was appeared and on four occasions he gave his confession and accepted his guilt pleading mercy of the respondents. He was given second show-cause notice. Reply was given. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the reply and passed the order of removal. In this regard, it is very relevant to quote the relevant portion of the enquiry report: "For such misconduct of accepting illegal gratification the instant proceeding was drawn up for misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 38 and 61(p) of WBSEBESRs. Reply was given. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the reply and passed the order of removal. In this regard, it is very relevant to quote the relevant portion of the enquiry report: "For such misconduct of accepting illegal gratification the instant proceeding was drawn up for misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 38 and 61(p) of WBSEBESRs. In his reply to the show cause notice in response to the charge-sheet he denied the allegations as false and concocted. He emphatically stated therein that he had never known the persons' names in the charge-sheet from whom he is alleged to have collected the amount on false promise. But during the enquiry his conduct was somewhat different. Initially he remained absent for long on grounds of illness supported by medical certificate. When he appeared for the first time on 5.4.2000 he pleaded not guilty and stood by his defence as stated in his reply to the show cause notice. But at the same time he begged pardon. Having found him in a disturbed state of mental health I allowed him time for appointing a defence assistant so that he could be defended properly. Ultimately he could not appoint any defence assistant and hearing was started on 18.10.2000 in the presence of the charged employee. After examination of a witness, the charged employee filed an application, pleaded for mercy admitting all the illegal or irregular things done by him. After giving necessary precaution I allowed him time for reflection till 28.11.2000. But on the next date he again remained absent. The case was fixed for hearing for further evidence. He again took time on grounds of health. On 8.3.2001 he appeared and again pleaded guilty in writing in addition to what he wrote on 18.10.2000. I repeated the caution again and thereafter accepted his plea of guilt, recording at the same time his demeanour and other extraneous pleas. Having this background in mind I propose to record my findings as follows:- His plea of guilt was categorical admission to all the charges levelled against him. Though he is now quite ill both physically and mentally, he gave his statement of admission voluntarily knowing fully well the consequences. I perused the papers including the deposition of Ad, which the prosecution has relied upon. Though he is now quite ill both physically and mentally, he gave his statement of admission voluntarily knowing fully well the consequences. I perused the papers including the deposition of Ad, which the prosecution has relied upon. I found that all the persons from whom the amounts of money as quoted in the charge sheet were extracted by him by fraudulent means having been interrogated during investigation and they gave their statement confirming the transactions. I found from the record that one of those persons who was deceived, Sri Sahadeb Pal has written a letter during the period of hearing stating that the charged employee has since refunded the money taken from him. On the basis of his plea of guilt and perusal of the evidences let and collected against him, I have no doubt that the charged employee was guilty of the offences like collecting money from different persons on false promise for his personal gain. He is, therefore, liable for action for misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 38 and 61(p) of WBSEBESRs. While awarding punishment the authority may like to consider his present state of health and mental condition and his family condition as well which I had clearly noted in my order dated 8.3.2001." 37. It would also be relevant to point out the reasons given by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment upon elaborately discussion is sufficient to come such a conclusion. In that order it was specifically recorded that on the basis of confession of guilt the charges were fully established. However, in the reply to the second show-cause notice stating that he was in an improper mental health at the time of giving confession, he urged for commencing the enquiry 'denovo' on the plea that he has recovered from such mental condition and now he is able to defend his case. This time again there is no evidence and/or medical certificate for his alleged recovery. However, the enquiry authority after careful examination of the records held that all confessions of guilt appeared to them a genuine and real and well thought of and the delinquent employee has got more than four and half months time from the enquiry officer to settle his mind to consider the consequences of such confession and to settle his mind. His defence representation dated 8th March, 2000 was also a product of well thought. His defence representation dated 8th March, 2000 was also a product of well thought. All are considered to be well thought conclusions and on the same line of thinking comprising begging mercy on humanitarian ground for the guilt cropped up from his financial and other family burden. It was specifically recorded by the disciplinary authority that medical certificates submitted by him from time to time did not support in favour of his ill mental health. However, it was also recorded that without support of any medical expert it is not tenable that one should be declared as mentally fit. As such, there is no reason on holding domestic enquiry 'denovo' and, therefore, this plea was rejected and order of removal was passed. 38. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority affirmed the order of punishment. 39. Although both sides argued at length and cited several decisions in support of their contentions but when the Court is considering for exercising its writ jurisdiction it should be looked whether there is violation of principle of natural justice or the procedural lapses or the decision is perverse and not in consequence with the relevant rules or the punishment which is totally disproportionate to be proved misconduct. But in this case nothing is found in support of the petitioner for such exercise. The writ Court is not a Court of trial neither it can weigh the evidence nor it can act as an appellate authority. Therefore, the scope of interference in discretionary writ jurisdiction is very limited. 40. On careful consideration of the entire matter, I do not find any violation of principles of natural justice or non-observance of relevant rules and regulations or the delinquent employee was denied reasonable opportunity to defend his case or even the punishment was totally disproportionate to the proof of misconduct of the employee. It is evident from records that the delinquent employee on four occasions confessed his guilt and even after cross-examination of one witness, he submitted his second admission. The enquiry officer gave opportunity of hearing and also allowed four and half month time to the delinquent employee considering the consequence of such guilt. It is evident from records that the delinquent employee on four occasions confessed his guilt and even after cross-examination of one witness, he submitted his second admission. The enquiry officer gave opportunity of hearing and also allowed four and half month time to the delinquent employee considering the consequence of such guilt. Again in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer said that the writ petitioner submitted his confession and prayed for mercy and he was given further time to consider the consequence of such confession but the employee did not withdraw the said confessional writing rather he prayed for mercy from the authorities stating the bad conditions of his family. Thus, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in any of the actions or orders either passed by disciplinary authority or appellate Authority. 41. In my view, there no merit in this writ petition. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 42. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.