JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - The petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 24.11.2018, whereby he has been dismissed from service, and the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the punishment order dated 24.11.2018. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Record Assistant on 19.06.2000 with the District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, and on 20.06.2000 was posted at the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Jagitial. During the course of his service he was placed under suspension on 25.04.2018 on the basis of certain complaints which were made by the advocates of Manthani. Subsequently, he was furnished with a charge-sheet. The following five charges were framed against him:- "Article of Charge No.1 That you Sri R. Srinivas, former Record Assistant, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Manthani, now under suspension while working as such, during the relevant period (i) used to demand and collect illegal gratification from the litigant public, Police, Advocates and Members of Lok Adalath from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- on the name of expenditure for conducting Lok Adalaths by posing yourself as an Officer; (ii) used to collect illegal gratification from the remuneration of Senior Advocates and Legal Aid Counsels towards commission and used to utilize the funds for himself allotted to the Authority and used to collect illegal gratification from the Police saying them to pay the same for the expenditure of meals and to pay for singers, and (iii) if anybody questions about your attitude, you openly again question them that "Am I only thief" and Thus, acted in such a biased manner, which constitutes misconduct of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an act of unbecoming of a Government servant, which also amounts to mis-conduct and that you behaved in a derogative manner and you thereby liable for punishment under Rule 20 of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Article of Charge No.2 While so, you have demanded Rs. 2,000/- each from Sri Rajender and Sri Venu, Advocates to give cheques but you have obtained Rs. 750/- each from them and also obtained Rs. Article of Charge No.2 While so, you have demanded Rs. 2,000/- each from Sri Rajender and Sri Venu, Advocates to give cheques but you have obtained Rs. 750/- each from them and also obtained Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification in C.C.No.75 of 2017 to get the said case referred to Lok Adalath, which constitutes mis-conduct of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an act of unbecoming of a Government servant, which also amounts to misconduct and that you behaved in a derogative manner and you thereby liable for punishment under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Article of Charge No.3 While so, you have demanded Rs. 16,000/- from the petitioner in P.L.C.No.6 of 2018 and besides it, you have already obtained Rs. 5,000/- from the respondent, which constitutes mis-conduct of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an act unbecoming of a Government servant, which also amounts to mis-conduct and that you behaved in a derogative manner and you thereby liable for punishment under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Article of Charge No.4 While so, you have obtained Rs. 1000/- from the candidates whose names are sent for Para Legal Volunteers and also received money from the Advocates Sadan Kumar and Srinivas in the name of conducting Legal Literacy Camps and that you have demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the Manager, Andhra Bank to issue notices in P.L.Cs and also received Rs. 1,000/- from one Krishna who filed P.L.C, which constitutes mis-conduct of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an act of unbecoming of a Government servant, in violation of Rule 3 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Article of Charge No.5 While so, you have obtained Rs. 300/- from one Vennapureddy Swarupa, who is client of Sri Akula Ramulu, Advocate and after passing award copy you used to demand Rs. 500/- from the concerned clients to hand-over the award copy and also demanded Rs. 5,000/- to give documents in P.L.C.No.6/2017 and snatched Rs. 500/- from the client of U.Subash, which constitutes mis-conduct of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of act of unbecoming of a Government servant, in violation of Rule 3 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991." 3. 5,000/- to give documents in P.L.C.No.6/2017 and snatched Rs. 500/- from the client of U.Subash, which constitutes mis-conduct of failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of act of unbecoming of a Government servant, in violation of Rule 3 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991." 3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge Memo. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded that while Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were proved, Charge Nos.3, 4 and 5 could not be established. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a second show cause notice. After considering his reply to the second show cause notice, the impugned order dated 24.11.2018 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the punishment order dated 24.11.2018, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment order and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 19.08.2019. Hence, the present Writ Petition before this Court. 4. Mrs. Udaya Sri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that according to the Enquiry Officer himself, K. Srinivas, one of the witnesses, had deposed that he came to know from Rajender and Venu, two Advocates, that the delinquent officer was asking for illegal gratification. Therefore, the testimony of K. Srinivas is based on a hearsay evidence. Secondly, while Venu has not been examined by the Department, only Rajender, Advocate, has been examined. Therefore, merely on the testimony of Rajender, the punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed on the petitioner. Thirdly, since the petitioner had taken part in the Telangana agitation, those who have deposed against the petitioner are prejudiced against him. Therefore, their testimony could not have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. Lastly, that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner. Therefore, both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that it is not only K. Srinivas, but also others who have supported the case of the Department. According to Rajender, the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- out of which he had paid Rs. 750/-. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that it is not only K. Srinivas, but also others who have supported the case of the Department. According to Rajender, the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- out of which he had paid Rs. 750/-. The same amount was also demanded from Venu which was paid to the delinquent officer. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has received illegal gratification from the advocates. Secondly, since the Charge No.1 and Charge No.2, mentioned hereinabove, had been duly established against the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the alleged charges. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported both the punishment order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as considered the record submitted before this Court. 7. Needless to say, a person working for the Legal Services Authority has to work with a great sense of honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness. For, the Legal Services Authority caters to the needs, interests, and rights of the downtrodden segments of our society. Moreover, any person working for the judiciary has to live up to the high ideals of the judiciary, which is known for its honesty and integrity, for its impartiality and objectivity, and for standing by the people at large. Therefore, any conduct that soils the reputation of the judiciary deserves to be deprecated in the harshest terms. 8. A bare perusal of the Enquiry Report clearly reveals that according to K. Srinivas, he came to know from Rajender and Venu that the petitioner was demanding Rs. 2,000/- each for delivering the cheques which were received from the District Legal Services Authority. The said statement is further corroborated by the deposition of Rajender himself, who clearly stated that he had to pay Rs. 750/- to the petitioner. Moreover, according to K. Srinivas, the petitioner had also demanded money from the client of one K.Sadan Kumar, Advocate. Furthermore, according to the Enquiry Report, the testimony of Rajender was further corroborated by the testimonies of Akula Ramulu, D. Vijay Kumar and U. Subash, all of whom were advocates. Hence, the Enquiry Officer was justified in concluding that Charge Nos.1 and 2 were proved against the petitioner. 9. Furthermore, according to the Enquiry Report, the testimony of Rajender was further corroborated by the testimonies of Akula Ramulu, D. Vijay Kumar and U. Subash, all of whom were advocates. Hence, the Enquiry Officer was justified in concluding that Charge Nos.1 and 2 were proved against the petitioner. 9. As stated above, there is no space for corruption in the judiciary. Anyone found to be corrupt in his conduct deserves to be dismissed from the service. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that the punishment order of dismissal is not shockingly disproportionate. In fact, it is the order which deserves to be passed in case a person is found to be corrupt while working for the judiciary. 10. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit to interfere in the Writ Petition; it is, hereby, dismissed. 11. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.