JUDGMENT - K. SUKUMARAN, J.:---The petitioner was employed as Bailiff in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha. He was involved in disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct linked with corruption. 2. The allegations, in substance, were that while functioning as a bailiff, and entrusted with the service of the notice in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1976 he demanded and received a sum of Rs. 30/- illegally from the appellant in that case. 3. The enquiry resulted in the order dated 13-1-1982 (Annexure-10), whereunder, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was dismissed from service with effect from 31-7-1980 afternoon. 4. He filed an appeal before the High Court. That was dismissed by the order Annexure "9" dated 22-4-1981. 5. A further appeal to the Government was attempted. That appeal was, however, withheld by order dated 7-3-1983 (Annexure 14). 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted initially that the charge against the petitioner had not been established. A sum of Rs. 30/- was received but it was only towards travelling allowances which under the Civil Manual, paragraph 239, he was entitled to receive. Such was the plea. This has been considered by the Enquiry Officer. The fact that he had not claimed the travelling allowance in the manner permitted, by preparing and submitting the T.A bill was highlighted in that context. As per Civil Manual, the party has to deposit the amount in the Court and bear travelling expenses of the bailiff. That does not, however, automatically mean that the bailiff can directly take cash from the party. The bailiff has to move the Presiding Officer of the Court to which he is attached for his allowance. Admittedly, this has not been done. In addition, there was evidence of the Nazir about the corrupt action of the bailiff. On the basis of that evidence also, a finding was entered that the delinquent had received the amount, not by way of travelling expenses but by way of illegal gratification. 7. It cannot be said that the finding is unjustified or unsupported by materials and evidence. The matter had been considered properly by the disciplinary authority. The appeal to the High Court, had been also duly considered by the High Court. 7. It cannot be said that the finding is unjustified or unsupported by materials and evidence. The matter had been considered properly by the disciplinary authority. The appeal to the High Court, had been also duly considered by the High Court. It cannot be assumed, without more, that the High Court, with its expertise and experience in assessing the contentions of the parties and looking into the rights of the citizens, including those of its own employees, would have missed any relevant aspect in the contentions legally and factually urged by the petitioner. We have not been shown any missing or messing up on the part of the High Court. Our attention was not drawn to any relevant materials or serious considerations which would have entitled the petitioner to a favourable finding but which were omitted by the High Court. 8. We have ourselves considered the materials alongwith the background and the other material circumstances. The bailiff with an experience spanning over a period of three decades cannot be innocent about the proper procedure. The admission of receipt of the amount by him, would in the circumstances, be rightly treated as receipt of the illegal gratification. 9. Once we come to the above conclusion, the only further question is about the severity of the punishment imposed upon him. In paragraph 10 of its order, the Disciplinary Authority has considered the matter elaborately and with the seriousness which the contention in that behalf deserved. The disciplinary authority was of the view that the nature of the misconduct, should be taken into consideration while awarding the punishment. It expressed the view in a fairly strong way by observing : "the delinquent should thank himself that he is not being prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act for receiving illegal gratification". 10. A tendency to soft-pedal with acts of corruption has to be deprecated. We cannot associate ourselves with a feeling that in the case of the corruption involving smaller amount, courts should wink their eyes. It is a cheap populistic approach. That will take away brick by brick, the sound foundation of any institution. That shall not be permitted, particularly in the Judicial institutions. The qualitative aspect of the mis-conduct cannot be lost sight of. Whether it be a pie or a million rupee, the heinousness does not differ. It is a cheap populistic approach. That will take away brick by brick, the sound foundation of any institution. That shall not be permitted, particularly in the Judicial institutions. The qualitative aspect of the mis-conduct cannot be lost sight of. Whether it be a pie or a million rupee, the heinousness does not differ. The situation which faces the Nation with corrupt elements all around is serious one. We have certainly to take an un-compromising attitude whenever corruption is noticed whether it be at the level of peon or at the heights of power. There are areas where dilution is impermissible, in view of larger interests of more enduring values. No one can appror of a sixty percent chastity. This attitude dissuades us from interfering with the ultimate order passed against the petitioner. 11. Counsel for the petitioner presented before us the tragic circumstances which he had to undergo in the domestic front subsequent to the order passed against him. That may be a matter for consideration and sympathy when viewed from human angle. However, when he is performing his duties as a part of the judicial institution, they become totally irrelevant. Such matters fall into insignificance not because the Judges do not have kind enough hearts but because they have a strong enough desire to protect the judicial institution from corroding corruption which is noticed in great dimension in recent times. 12. The further contention is in relation to withholding of the appeal by the order dated 7-3-1983. We do not find anything wrong there also. We are of the view that tragic circumstances referred to in paragraph 16 of the wirt petition would not be justification enough for not approaching this Court earlier than what he had done. We, therefore, decline to examine that question as the plea is highly belated as well. 13. A further submission was as regards the improper procedure of enquiry conducted under 1976 Rules. According to the petitioner, it should have been conducted under the earlier Rules. This does not go to the root of the matter. There is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. That aspect has been highlighted by the disciplinary authority. 13. A further submission was as regards the improper procedure of enquiry conducted under 1976 Rules. According to the petitioner, it should have been conducted under the earlier Rules. This does not go to the root of the matter. There is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. That aspect has been highlighted by the disciplinary authority. That is not a grievance which can merit our interference with the order passed by the authorities, having regard to seriousness of the misconduct and having regard to the various circumstances, including the fact that the order of the dismissal was passed way back on 13-1-1982. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.