Disproportionate disciplinary punishment may be reduced where dismissal is excessive for proved misconduct.

Proved indiscipline in service disciplinary proceedings may be judicially reviewed where the punishment is grossly disproportionate and shocks the conscience. Applying proportionality, the Court noted that the misconduct was blameworthy but did not involve manhandling or justify forfeiture of past service, so dismissal from service was excessive. At the same time, the false allegation against the superior officer was treated seriously, so complete leniency was not warranted. The Court substituted the penalty with reduction to the rank of constable, ordered continuity of service, and denied back wages and other financial benefits for the intervening period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the punishment of dismissal from service for the proved misconduct was so disproportionate as to warrant judicial interference and substitution of a lesser penalty.

Analysis: The charges of indiscipline were concurrently found proved, and there was no reason to disturb those findings. However, in service jurisprudence, punishment remains amenable to judicial review where it is outrageously disproportionate or shocks the conscience of the Court. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court held that the misconduct, though blameworthy, did not involve manhandling, did not justify forfeiture of past service, and did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. At the same time, the false allegation made against the superior officer was taken seriously, so complete leniency was not justified.

Conclusion: The dismissal from service was held to be excessive and was substituted by reduction to the rank of constable, with continuity of service but without back wages or other financial benefits for the intervening period.

Ratio Decidendi: A punishment in disciplinary proceedings may be interfered with when it is grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and therefore arbitrary or shocking to the conscience, and the Court may substitute an appropriate lesser penalty instead of affirming dismissal.

---