ORDER : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-West Bengal State Electricity Board and others against the judgment dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 149/2003. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the judgment and order dated 9th August, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9401(W) of 1997 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent-Hari Bhakta Ghosh. The factual matrix of the case is as follows : 2. The respondent-Hari Bhakta Ghosh was functioning as Station Superintendent with the Electricity Board at Gazole Group Electric Supply in Malda District. For alleged misconduct he was suspended on 14th May, 1994 and charge sheeted vide Memo No. AS/V-1132/983(1-7) dated 17th June, 1994 for four charges, as set out here-in-below : "CHARGE - I Whereas it appears that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh was posted at Gazole E/s as Station Superintendent and he was responsible for all activities of that Group Electric Supply as Station-in-Charge. It was the Responsibility of Shri Ghosh to dispose of the pending service connections of Gazole Gr. Electric Supply besides other jobs. And Whereas it appears from the statements of Shri Ashoke Sarkar, one of the intending consumers under Gajole Gr. E/S that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh, had taken bribe of Rs.15,334/- from Shri Ashoke Sarkar for effecting his industrial service connection No. G/I/1711 but failed to effect service connection within time. Shri Ashoke Sarkar then intimated the local people of that area, who pressurised Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh to refund the money which had been taken illegally. Further, it appears that being pressurised from the local people Shri Ghosh refunded the entire sum of Rs.15,334/- to Shri. Ashoke Sarkar in two instalments of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5334/- in presence of Shri Naresh Ch. Baba, Prabir Sarkar and Shri Subhas Roy, local villagers of Gajole. And Whereas it appears that the entire aforesaid activities of Shri Hari Bhata Ghosh had been published in the local news paper "Gour Barta" dated 04.12.1993, published from Malda which tarnished the image of WBSEB which is also detrimental to the interest of the Board. Baba, Prabir Sarkar and Shri Subhas Roy, local villagers of Gajole. And Whereas it appears that the entire aforesaid activities of Shri Hari Bhata Ghosh had been published in the local news paper "Gour Barta" dated 04.12.1993, published from Malda which tarnished the image of WBSEB which is also detrimental to the interest of the Board. Thus it appears that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh indulged in corrupt practices by taking bribe from Shri Ashoke Sarkar, a prospective consumer which is totally detrimental to the interest of the Board and against the canons of good behavior and discipline. Such conduct of Shri Ghosh, if proved is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and constitutes an act of misconduct, lack of integrity, breach of discipline and in violation of Regulations 38 and 61(P)of the WBSEB Employees service Regulations. CHARGE-II Whereas it appears from the official record of Gajole Gr.E/S that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh during his incumbency as Station Superintendent at Gajole Gr. E/S released and effected a new industrial service connection to Shri Aswini Kr. Saha, S/C No. G/Ind/1667 and an energy matter No. UE/RPO/10496/3X 30 Amp. was installed in the premises of the said consumer. It further appears that the above referred energy meter was previously installed in the premises of M/s Gayatri Debi, S/C No. 21 - Ag-1 and removed from the premises of Gayatri Debi as it was defective and no final reading of the meter was recorded in the Blue Card of S/C No. 21-AG-1. -And- Whereas it appears that the new service connection of M/s Aswini Kr. Saha, S/C No. G/I/1667 was effected without approval of the Asstt. Engineer, Gajole(O & M)S/Divn. As per norms. Thus it appears that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh adopted malpractices in effecting service connection to an industrial consumer by a defective meter and worked beyond his jurisdiction with ulterior motive for his personal gain. Such conduct of Shri.Ghosh, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and constitutes an act of misconduct, lack of integrity, breach of discipline and violation of regulations 38,59,61(e)of WBSEB ESRs. CHARGE-III Whereas it appears from the official record of the Gajola Gr. E/S that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh,S.E.,during his incumbency as Station Superintendent at Gajola Gr. E/s released and effected two new service connections in favour of Shri Hari Pada Saha. CHARGE-III Whereas it appears from the official record of the Gajola Gr. E/S that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh,S.E.,during his incumbency as Station Superintendent at Gajola Gr. E/s released and effected two new service connections in favour of Shri Hari Pada Saha. SC No. G/I/1679 and Shri Bishu Ch. Saha, S/C No. G/I/1654 respectively. It further appears that above service connections were effected by installing meters removing from the disconnected consumers without knowledge of the higher authority and without any record. The service connection in favour of Shri Hari Pada Saha, S/CNo. G/I1679 was effected by installing the energy meter removed from the premises of Shri Pinaki Chakraborty (S/C No. 284/Ind) and the service connection is favour of Shri Bishu Ch. Saha, S/C No. G/I/1654 was effected by installing the energy meter removed from the premises of Shri Jagat Ranjan Samanta (S/C No. 305 No. 305/Ind). Both the new service connections were effected without the knowledge of the Asstt. Engineer. Gazole (O&M) S/Divn. and without plastic sealing by the Asstt. Engineer). It also appears that as per procedure followed at Gazole (O&M) sub-Divn. all the industrial connections were effected jointly by the Stn. Supdt. And Asstt. Engineer with plastic sealing of the Asstt. Engineer. Thus it appears that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh adopted mal-practice effected service connection by irregular manner and worked with ulterior motive. Such conduct of Shri Ghosh, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and constitutes an act of misconduct, lack of integrity, breach of discipline and violation of Regulations 38 and 59 of the WBSEB ESRs. CHARGE - IV Whereas it appears that during the incumbency as Station Supdt. at Gajole Gr. E/S Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh was asked to give certain information by the Asstt. Engineer, Gajole (G&M) Sub-Divn. Vide his Memo No. GZI/SD/Conf/221 dated 12.08.1993. It also appears that vide his Memo No. CES/Conf/421 dated 25.08.1993 Sr. Ghosh had replied to the Asstt. Engineer, Gajole (O&M) S/Divn. and gave information as asked for. On Scrutiny, it appears that Shri Ghosh had given one mis-information deliberately and with ulterior motive. Engineer, Gajole (G&M) Sub-Divn. Vide his Memo No. GZI/SD/Conf/221 dated 12.08.1993. It also appears that vide his Memo No. CES/Conf/421 dated 25.08.1993 Sr. Ghosh had replied to the Asstt. Engineer, Gajole (O&M) S/Divn. and gave information as asked for. On Scrutiny, it appears that Shri Ghosh had given one mis-information deliberately and with ulterior motive. In his reply dated 25.08.2003 Shri Ghosh informed that new service connected by installing meter removing from the S/C No. 314/I/G. But on physical verification, it had been observed that the new service connection in respect of S/C No. G/I-1667 was effected by installing defective meter No. RPO 10496 removed from S/C No. AGI/21 of Smt. Gayatri Devi. Thus, it appears that Shri Hari Bhakta Ghosh failed to give full and correct information which he possessed when he was called upon to do so, and gave misinformation with ulterior motive. Such conduct of Shri Ghosh, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and constitutes an act of misconduct, lack of integrity, breach of discipline and violation of Regulations 38 and 61 (i) of the WBSEB ESRs." 3. On receiving the charge sheet, the respondent submitted a detailed reply denying the charges. The said reply was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and Departmental Enquiry was initiated appointing Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter giving the respondent opportunity to defend his case. Before the Enquiry Officer, the presenting officer produced the documentary evidence and witnesses. Respondent was also allowed to lead evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. On completion of enquiry and after careful examination of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and considering the arguments raised by the parties, the Enquiry Officer, by Report dated 13th March, 1995, held the respondent guilty of all the four charges levelled against him. 4. In view of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to respondent on 23rd May, 1995 proposing punishment of "Removal from service". The respondent was called upon to show cause as to why punishment proposed against him should not be imposed on him for the charges established against him. A copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report was also forwarded. 5. The respondent instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, challenged the said show cause notice by preferring the Writ Petition No. 8590 (W) of 1995. A copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report was also forwarded. 5. The respondent instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, challenged the said show cause notice by preferring the Writ Petition No. 8590 (W) of 1995. The High Court of Calcutta disposed of the same on 16th June, 1995, inter alia, with observations that the said Writ Petition was pre-mature. Subsequently, another Writ Petition being C.O. No. 7762(W) of 1996 was preferred by the respondent and the High Court by order dated 27th July, 1996 disposed of the same by directing the Disciplinary Authority to pass final order in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority after careful examination of the case records and giving due consideration to the reply dated 7th August, 1995 submitted by the respondent, passed final order on 23rd July, 1996 thereby removing the respondent from the services of Board with immediate effect. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of removal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 18th February, 1997. Against the order of the Appellate Authority and the order of removal, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 9401(W)/1997 before the High Court of Calcutta. The learned Single Judge on hearing the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case, dismissed the Writ Petition by judgment dated 9th August, 2002. However, the appeal was preferred against the same, bearing No. F.M.A. No. 149 of 2003. Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by the impugned judgment directing the appellant to reinstate the Respondent in service with 50% back wages and consequential benefits and allowances. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and to sit in appeal over the finding of Enquiry Officer and cannot substitute his own opinion. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on evidence of the witnesses and submitted that the Enquiry Report is not based on evidence and is frivolous. For the said reason, the Division Bench after going through the evidence had come to the conclusion that the charges were not proved. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on evidence of the witnesses and submitted that the Enquiry Report is not based on evidence and is frivolous. For the said reason, the Division Bench after going through the evidence had come to the conclusion that the charges were not proved. 8. From the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench what we find is that the Division Bench on consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has committed a grave error and held that there is no evidence in support of the contention that PW-1 paid the amount to effect service connection not only in his favour but in favour of two other persons. Thus, Charge No. 1 was held to be not proved. 9. With regard to Charges II, III and IV, the Division Bench observed that the appellant while effecting service connection acted in violation of the procedure. The Court held that though he violated the practice as followed at Gajole Sub Division by acting without approval of the Assistant Engineer and without knowledge of the higher authority relying on the evidences of PW-5 and PW-6 held the charges as not proved. 10. From the charge sheet, we find that one of the charges framed against the respondent was that he asked one consumer Ashoke Sarkar (PW-1), to pay Rs.36,500/- for the purpose of granting connection. Further, the respondent issued final receipt of Rs.21,166/-. The rest of the amount Rs.15,334/- was received by the appellant from Shri Ashoke as bribe money. It is relevant to notice the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. The evidence of PW-1 shows that he informed Naresh Chandra Saha (PW-2) and the matter was brought to the notice of the party leader and other local people. PW-1 stated that ‘under pressure from the local people the respondent Hari Bahkta Ghosh refunded Rs.10,000/- in the presence of Naresh Chandra Saha'. He has also stated that in presence of Prabir Sarkar, Subhas Roy and Naresh Chandra Saha, the appellant in the month of October, 1993 refunded a further sum of Rs.5,334/- P.W-2 Naresh Chandra Saha stated that he alongwith PW-1 and other local people went to the house of the respondent and under pressure the respondent refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. He has also stated that in presence of Prabir Sarkar, Subhas Roy and Naresh Chandra Saha, the appellant in the month of October, 1993 refunded a further sum of Rs.5,334/- P.W-2 Naresh Chandra Saha stated that he alongwith PW-1 and other local people went to the house of the respondent and under pressure the respondent refunded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. He also stated that after about 15 days he alongwith Ashoke Sarkar (PW-1) Prabir and Subhas again went to the house of the respondent where a further sum of Rs.5,334-/- was paid. 11. Prabir Kumar Sarkar (PW-3) also stated that in his presence a sum of Rs.5,334/- was refunded by the respondent. Shri Subhas Roy (PW-4) also stated that he alongwith others went to the house of the respondent where a sum of Rs.5,334/- was refunded by the respondent. 12. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and it was also affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 13. It is well settled proposition of law that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not required to apprise/view evidence adduced in the course of Departmental Proceeding as long as there is some evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the delinquent. The strict and sophisticated rules of evidence are not required to be followed by the Enquiry Officer before arriving at its conclusion and once the findings have been recorded on the basis of the evidence, the High Court under judicial review cannot substitute the same by its subjective opinion. 14. In the case of Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etwah and others v. Hoti Lal and Another, (2003)3 SCC 605 , this Court has held as follows : "It needs to be emphasised that the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974 LCR 120) A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a Court, as to what it is that the Court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal." 15. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Bank of India and others v. T. Jogram, (2007)7 SCC 236 , therein this Court held as follows : "By now it is well-settled principle of law that judicial review is not against the decision. It is against the decision making process. In the instant case, there are no allegations of procedural irregularities/illegality and also there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the respondent tried to sustain the allegation of malafide. He tried to assert that the respondent filed a case against the Chief Manager of Secunderabad Branch in 1996 and the enquiry initiated against the respondent is the fall out of malafide. We are unable to accept the bald allegations. The allegation of malafide was not substantiated. It is well settled law that the allegation of malafide cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. We are unable to accept the bald allegations. The allegation of malafide was not substantiated. It is well settled law that the allegation of malafide cannot be based on surmises and conjectures. It should be based on factual matrix. Counsel also tried to assert the violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the documents required by the respondent were not supplied to him. From the averment it is seen that the documents, which were sought to be required by the respondent, were all those bills submitted by the respondent himself before the authority. In these circumstances, no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the respondent." 16. In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we entirely agree with the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge. The well reasoned order recorded by the learned Single Judge having reversed by the Division Bench by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting the same by its subjective opinion it is fit to be set aside. 17. For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned Judgment dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 149/2003 and affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed. No costs.