Unauthorised absence and unattended arms justified removal from service; punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.

Removal from service for unauthorised absence and leaving arms and ammunition unattended was upheld because the governing rules required prior permission before leaving station, and a mere leave application did not amount to proper intimation. The misconduct was treated as aggravated by the failure to secure permission and by exposing sensitive weapons and ammunition to risk. The Court also reaffirmed that disciplinary punishment can be interfered with only if it is shockingly disproportionate, and found no such disproportionality on the proved facts. The statutory punishment was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether removal from service for absence from duty without proper intimation and leaving arms and ammunition unattended was justified, and whether the punishment was shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference.

Analysis: The relevant rules required a member of the Force to obtain specific permission before leaving station and treated absence from duty without proper intimation, or overstay beyond sanctioned leave without sufficient cause, as misconduct warranting removal from service. A mere application for leave was held not to amount to proper intimation, because the requirement of permission and the discipline imposed by the rules could not be diluted by an unaccepted request for leave. The Court further held that interference with punishment in disciplinary matters is limited to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate. In the facts proved, the appellant left duty and the station without permission and left arms and ammunition unattended in a sensitive area, which aggravated the misconduct and provided no basis for judicial interference with the statutory punishment.

Conclusion: The removal from service was legally sustainable, and the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate.

---