Court-martial punishment and proportionality review cannot displace dismissal unless the sentence shocks the conscience.

The Supreme Court held that a court-martial's punishment of dismissal should not be interfered with merely because it appears severe. Once the court-martial had jurisdiction, was properly constituted, and the charges were proved, the choice and quantum of punishment lay within its domain under the Army Act, 1950. Section 72 permits award of the prescribed punishment or a lesser punishment, but does not require a lesser sentence in every case. Judicial review on proportionality applies only in extreme cases where the sentence is perverse, irrational, or shocks the conscience; the facts here did not justify interference, so the High Court was wrong to set aside the dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the General Court Martial on the ground that it was disproportionate and violative of Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950.

Analysis: The charges found proved were serious, including violation of good order and military discipline, unbecoming conduct, and making false statements in official records. Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950 permits a court-martial, upon conviction, to award the prescribed punishment or any lesser punishment in the scale under Section 71; it does not require the award of a lesser punishment in every case. The Court held that once the court-martial had jurisdiction, was properly constituted, and the charges were proved, the choice and quantum of punishment fell within its domain. The principle of proportionality in judicial review applies only in extreme cases where the sentence is perverse, irrational, or shocks the conscience, and the facts here did not meet that standard.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment of dismissal, and interference with the sentence was unwarranted.

---