The writ petitioner Hemanta Kumar Rathor has approached this Court to ventilate his grievance against the order passed by the Summary Court Martial. The respondent No. 2 who held the Summary Court Martial tried his offence under section 41 of the Army Act, for short 'the Act'. 2. To appreciate the submissions of Mr. J. N. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, a little narration of the back ground of the case would be necessary. The petitioner joined army as Sepoy Clerk-in 1977 and posted at 1 Advance Base Workshop EME under Care of 99 APO. Sometime in 1981 the petitioner as per provisions of section 22 of the Army Act read with Rules 11 and 13 of the Army Rules opted for his discharge from Army Service. But the petitioner was not allowed that option and he was sent for medical examination. The petitioner obtained a medical report dated 21.11.81 not on the ground that he is unfit to work in the Army but only on a general physical examination of "Obesity" with the remark that the petitioner was reducing his weight by displaying adequate self confidence. However, the petitioner was put behind the bar on 66 82 on the allegation that he lost his Identity Card due to his negligence and it was further recommended that disciplinary action was to be taken against the petitioner. On 7.6.82 the petitioner when offered, he refused to take meal and also on 9.6 82 even in spite of the order of Lt. Col. R. K. Bhatia, OIC Administration of the same unit. Therefore, according to the authority, the petitioner disobeyed the lawful command of his supe­rior officer. The charge sheet was prepared by framing the charge against the petitioner which is annexed with this petition as Annexure-3. The petitioner was charged with J "Disobeying the lawful command of his superior officer. In that he, at Field, while in military custody from 07 June 82, did not take food since then and on 09 June 82, when ordered by Lt. Col. R. K. Bhatia. OTC Administration of the same unit to take food at 1300 hrs on 09 June 82 did not do so." The petitioner was therefore tried for the above charge in a Summary Court Martial which was assembled on 12.6.82 charge being dated 10.6.82. 3. In course of the trial three witnesses were examined. Col. R. K. Bhatia. OTC Administration of the same unit to take food at 1300 hrs on 09 June 82 did not do so." The petitioner was therefore tried for the above charge in a Summary Court Martial which was assembled on 12.6.82 charge being dated 10.6.82. 3. In course of the trial three witnesses were examined. The plea taken by the petitioner was that as he was suffering from 'Obesity' he did not like to take food The Summary Court Martial was not convinced the convicted the petitioner for disobeying the lawful command of the superior and inflicted two sentences, namely (a) to suffer R.T. for 6 months in civil prison, (b) to be dismissed from service. The petitioner, however, filed a representation to the confirming authority under section 164 of the Act, but that was rejected as a result of which the petitioner had to suffer two casualties one for imprisonment in the civil prison at Gauhati and the other, dismissal from service. This is how the petitioner has approach this Court with this writ petition challenging the legality of the order of conviction and sentence inflicted on him by the Summary Court Martial. 4. Mr, J. N Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the impugn d order of Summary Court Martial dated l2.6 82 mainly on two grounds. They are-(l) the alleged offence of not taking food cannot be treated as offence in view of the fact that a medical certi­ficate was issued to the effect that the petitioner has been suffering from 'Obesity' as a result of which he had to restrict his diet and that the Summary Court Martial was not held in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the Army Rules framed thereunder, ( 2) that the conviction and sentence are bad in law in view of the principles laid down in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC 2386 ) and the sentences fueled on the petitioner are in violation of Rule l24 of the Army Rules. 5. As regards the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an apparent illegality in holding the Page no. 5. As regards the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an apparent illegality in holding the Page no. 238 to be " The procedural safeguards contemplated in the Act must be considered in the context of and corresponding to the plentitude of the summary jurisdiction of the Court Martial and the severity of the consequences that visit the person subject to that jurisdiction. The procedural safeguards should be commensurate with the sweep of the powers. The wider the power, the greater the need for the restraint in its ex­ercise and correspondingly, more liberal the construction of the procedural safeguards envisaged by Statute." " We are afraid, the non-compliance of the mandate of S. 130 is an infirmity which goes to the root of the jurisdiction and without more, vitiates the proceedings. Indeed it has been so held by this Court in Prithvi Pal Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413 ." It was further held- “ What emerges, therefore, is that in the present case there is a non-compliance with the mandate of S. 130 with the attention consequence that the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial are rendered infirm in law. This disposes of the first limb of the contention ( a )". 8. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner is that the provision of section 130 was not complied with at least to ask the petitioner about his objection in holding Summary Court Martial by the same authority who framed the charge against the petitioner. That apart, their Lordships also held that the gravity of offence in Ranjit (supra ) is not severe which postulates the in­fliction of two sentences as had been done in the said case. In the present case, the petitioner was first found guilty of disobe­dience of lawful command of the authority superior to him and he was inflicted with two punishment. Under Rule 124 of the Rules, sentence is prescribed in respect of offences which are tried under the Court Martial. Rule 124 of the Army Rules runs as follows:- " The Court shall award one sentence in respect of all offences of which the accused is found guilty." 9. Under Rule 124 of the Rules, sentence is prescribed in respect of offences which are tried under the Court Martial. Rule 124 of the Army Rules runs as follows:- " The Court shall award one sentence in respect of all offences of which the accused is found guilty." 9. It is admitted fact that in this case and as per charge only one offence was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and he was tried under Summary Court Martial. Therefore, apparently it is clear that the petitioner whs convicted under section 41 of the Act a d he had been inflicted with two different punish­ment as aforesaid which is violative of the principle of law prescribed under Rule 124 of the Army Rules. Therefore, on that count also, the sentence is liable to be quashed. 10 In Ranjit ( supra ) their Lordships observed about the judi­cial review which developed to a stage in the field of judicial pro­nouncement. Quoting a passage from Lord Deplock's judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service (1984) 3 WLR 1174 ( H L ), their Lordships observed the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art 14 of the Constitution, (see Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 ) 11. We have heard Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad, Sr. Central Gover­nment Standing Counsel who has resisted this petition f n the ground raised by Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad has submitted that the Summary Court Martial was held with all propriety and there was no viola­tion of any provision of law at all. However, the learned counsel Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad has not controverted the fact that respondent No. 2 who framed the charge against the petitioner held the Summary Court Martial. 12. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad has not submitted anything possibly on the ground that there cannot be any second opinion as regards the principle laid down by their Lordships in Ranjit ( supra ). 13. 12. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court Mr. Sk. Chand Mohammad has not submitted anything possibly on the ground that there cannot be any second opinion as regards the principle laid down by their Lordships in Ranjit ( supra ). 13. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and basing on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ranjit (supra) we are constrained to hold that two punishment should not have been inflicted in view of the gravity of the offence alleged in the charge. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that the petitioner has already undergone 47 days imprisonment in civil prison at Gauhati. However, we would observe in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that in the present case the punishment is undoubtedly disproportionate and as such interference by this Court is justified. Therefore, considering the facts' and circumstances of the case and of the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court we are of the view that the impugned order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside which we hereby do. Consequently the petition is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the petitioner are quashed. Accordingly we direct the authority of the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his post he was holding at the time of his dismissal.