In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A.No.1854 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Pawan Kumar ..Appellant Versus H.S.L.S.A and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. S.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the Appellant. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. C.M.No.4965 of 2011 C.M. is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.4964 of 2011 C.M. is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.4963of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application,which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 108 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. L.P.A.No.1854 of 2011 The appellant is in appeal before us under Clause X of the Letters Patent, 1919 against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.5.2011 dismissing the writ petition challenging an order of dismissal from service. The appellant was dismissed on account of being found guilty of gross misconduct in demanding illegal gratification from a practicing Advocate for passing his professional fee bill. He was dismissed from service of the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana, Fatehabad by a speaking order dated 7.10.2009, a copy of which is Annexure P-7. The facts in brief are that the appellant was charge sheeted on 19.11.2008. His reply to the charge sheet was not accepted as absolving him of the alleged misconduct of demanding ‘commission’ from an Advocate to prepare cheques towards honorarium receivable from the District Legal Services Authority and consequently a regular inquiry was ordered. Learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 26.5.2009. The appellant cross examined witnesses and produced his defence evidence. After considering the evidence on record the charge stood proved. The Member Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority issued show cause notice for imposing major penalty on the appellant by his letter dated 11.6.2009. The appellant submitted his reply on 30.6.2009. The appellant was dismissed from service on 7.10.2009. His statutory appeal before the Hon’ble Executive Chairman, Haryana State legal Services Authority stood dismissed on 30.4.2010 after hearing the appellant and finding that there was no reason to disbelieve the complaining Advocate, which brought him to this Court in a writ petition which has been decided by the learned Single Judge on 10.5.2011, against which the present appeal has been preferred. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Advocate involved in the episode had resiled from his statement at the regular inquiry. The argument is misplaced and not substantiated from the record. The discrepancy as to the date of payment of illegal gratification at the time of recording of statement at the inquiry being different from the one mentioned in the charge sheet, would not amount to ‘resiling’ sufficient to discharge guilt. Not much would hinge on it. This was the sole argument propounded by the Ld Counsel in his address before us. The pith and substance of the complaint made, its probability in the sequence of events as unfolded in the inquiry report stare us in the face. It is well settled that in writ jurisdiction, this Court does not exercise appellate powers. Interference can be only in case of by now well settled principles relating to domestic inquiries, inasmuch as that the administrative order under challenge is perverse as no reasonable man would pass or it is a case of no evidence, or the order is patently without jurisdiction or is malafide or is one such that disturbs the conscience of the Court on quantum of punishment inasmuch as that the crime does not fit the punishment nor the punishment the crime. None of the aforesaid reasons have come into play in the present case in aid of the appellant. The choice of punishment of dismissal is neither harsh nor disproportionate to the charge proved in the facts of the present case. No other ground was pressed. We have absolutely no doubt that a Clerk serving in the system of dispensation of justice deserves no leniency for what he has done and the learned Single Judge has passed a perfectly justified order, which is upheld. In view of the above, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 3,2011 nk