JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J. (Oral):- Heard. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner, a Grade IV employee of the District Court, Ambala, was chargesheeted for specific acts of misconduct. In the inquiry held, where he participated, he was found guilty of the charges levelled. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal which was affirmed by the learned Administrative Judge by an elaborate order dated 13.02.2009 passed in the service appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted. The same having been dismissed the recourse to the Letters Patent Appeal has been made. 3. The charges framed against the appellant/writ petitioner would indicate that the appellant/writ petitioner is an incorrigible worker who used to commit deliberate misdeeds in the execution of any task assigned to him. From the chargesheet it is evident that when the appellant/writ petitioner was asked to bring water he used to deliberately mix the water with soap. On occasions when he was asked to clean up the tables, lights and fans he used to break the same. On the said facts the allegation levelled against him was that he had deliberately committed such acts and he was a work shireker who also used to proceed on leave on false grounds. 4. The Writ Court should not normally reappreciate the evidence adduced in the course of a domestic inquiry/departmental proceeding unless such appreciation of evidence by the primary authorities is patently unacceptable. This is not the position in the present case. That apart, the order dated 13.02.2009 passed by the learned Administrative Judge clearly indicates that the appellant/writ petitioner was given due opportunity to contest the proceedings against him and it is on the basis of the appellant/writ petitioner’s participation in the inquiry held that the conclusions of inquiry were recorded. That apart, the appellant/writ petitioner was also heard by the learned Administrative Judge in the service appeal filed by him. We, therefore, will have no cause to find any error in the findings of the inquiry and the view taken by the learned authorities below. 5. An argument has been advanced that the penalty of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate. The power of interference with the penalty imposed by the prescribed authorities is a rare power which the Court will invoke only if its conscience is shocked. The above parameter does not apply to the present case. 5. An argument has been advanced that the penalty of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate. The power of interference with the penalty imposed by the prescribed authorities is a rare power which the Court will invoke only if its conscience is shocked. The above parameter does not apply to the present case. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit whatsoever in this appeal. The appeal is consequently dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. ----------