N. G. Nandi, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have been challenging of order dated 14. 12. 1995 dismissing them from service under Section 11 (1) of the C. R. P. F. Act, 1949 and attaching them in CRPFBN/hq located at Delhi with consequential relief of pay and allowances due to them. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they were posted in CRPF Company at Mukakchung. Nagaland; that the said Company was command by Deputy Comdt. N. R. Yadav, which was under command of 8 Bn C. R. P. F. with Headquarter at Jorhat (Assam); that the Commanding Officer of 8 Bn CRPF was Comdt. CCD P. L. Siwan; that on 5. 2. 1994, Deputy Comdt. N. R. Yadav gave orders for move of a Convoy of three vehicles with 19 CRPF personnel for collection of ration and repair of wireless equipments in Assam ; that the Convoy commanded by Sub-Inspector R. K. Singh moved to Jorhat on 5. 2. 1994 and reached the headquarter of 8 Bn CRPF for collection of stores and repair of wireless equipments; that on 6. 2. 1994, the Commanding Officer along with other staff carried out a surprise check of the vehicles of the Convoy which had come with the petitioners on 5. 2. 1994 and large quantity of IMF liquor packed in suit cases, boxes, driver cabin and concealed under the ration bags was found; that the petitioners are alleged to have kept the following IMF liquor: (A) No. 811180138 L/nk/driver/i. K. Mishra 16 full bottles of IMF liquor in the driver cabin of the vehicle which the petitioner was driving. (B) No. 850620098 Ct. Ashok Kumar - 54 bottles of IMF liquor i. e. 6 large bottles + 48 half bottles. (B) No. 850620098 Ct. Ashok Kumar - 54 bottles of IMF liquor i. e. 6 large bottles + 48 half bottles. ( 3 ) THAT the respondents filed counter affidavit interalia contending that both the petitioners were found to have purchased IMF liquor from the Jorhat market in the State of Assam ; that they unauthorisedly loaded the IMF liquor in the Government vehicle with the intention to take it to Mukakchung in the State of Nagaland; that both the petitioners were involved in smuggling of IMF liquor from a non-dry State of Assam to a dry State of Nagaland; that after joint departmental inquiry, the petitioners have been dismissed from service by Commandant under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act1949 read with Rule 27 (a) of CRPF Rules 1955; that the petitioners unsuccessfully preferred the appeal against the said dismissed order. ( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the Convoy of three vehicles moved to Jorhat (Assam) with 19 CRPF personnel including the petitioners for collection of ration and repair of wireless equipments and in a surprise check on 6. 2. 1994 in Assam, the vehicles of the Convoy, which had come with the petitioners on 5. 2. 1994, were checked and that large quantity of IMF liquor was found packed in suitcases , boxes, driver cabin and some concealed under the ration bags. The petitioners admittedly were in possession at IMF liquor bottles. The petitioner No. 1 Constable Ashok Kumar is alleged to have unauthorisedly purchased and possessed 54 bottles of IMF liquor whereas petitioner No. 2 Constable I. K. Mishra is alleged to have unauthorisedly purchased and possessed 16 bottles of IMF liquor. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioners that the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the petitioner is unduly harsh and disproportionate and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence; that the petitioners could have been at the best inflicted a minor punishment and the punishment inflicted is unjustified in view of the recovery of 54 half bottles of RUM found from the petitioners. = As against this, it is submitted by Mr. = As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, that in all 14 Constables have been removed from service for their indisciplined act of unauthorisedly purchasing IMF liquor in bulk quantity noted against each of the constable as the said quantity was purchased from Assam for being smuggled into Nagaland which is a dry State. It is further contended that the quantum of punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority cannot be gone into by the court in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore , this is not a case for interference with the punishment inflicted on the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India. reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court page 2386 wherein it is held that the choice and quantum of punishment is within the discretion of the Court-Martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is , otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-Martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationally and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. " ON behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of State of U. P. and Others Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla and Another, reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases page 750 wherein it is held that "it is settled law that the Court is not a court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of the punishment to be inposed on a Government servant based upon the misconduct proved against him. Its proportionality also cannot be some into by the court. The only question is whether the disciplinary authority would have passed such an order. It is settled law that even one of the charges. Its proportionality also cannot be some into by the court. The only question is whether the disciplinary authority would have passed such an order. It is settled law that even one of the charges. It held proved and sufficient for inposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. the court would be loath to interfere with that part of the order. "the sentence to be imposed has to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the offence would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is a well accepted principle of law. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the Convoy had come on 5. 2. 1994 from Nagaland which is a dry State. The petitioners No. 1. is proved to have unauthorisedly purchased and possessed 54 bottles of IMF liquor whereas the petitioner No. 2. the driver is proved to have unauthorisedly purchased and possessed 16 bottles of IMF liquor. It may be appreciated that the purchased of the said liquor is in Assam, which is a non-dry State. The recovery of the same is in Assam in a surprise check on 6. 2. 1994. Obviously the number of bottles of IMF liquor found in surprise check on 6. 2. 1994 could not have been consumed in a day s time. The Convoy was obviously to return to Nagaland and the liquor bottles purchased and possessed by petitioners in Assam must have been for being smuggled to Nagaland. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, besides the 16 bottles of liquor found and recovered from him, the other liquor bottles were also kept in driver s cabin, in boxes, suit cases, etc. and also concealed below the ration bags. Thus , the gravity of the offence as far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned cannot be under-rated inasmuch as he not only unauthorisedly possessed 16 bottles of liquor obviously for being smuggled into the dry. State of Nagaland but he being uncharge of the vehicle as a driver could not have permitted, leaving aside his own possession of liquor bottles, the other bottles of liquor being kept not only in driver s cabin, in boxes, suit cases but also concealed below the ration bags, etc. State of Nagaland but he being uncharge of the vehicle as a driver could not have permitted, leaving aside his own possession of liquor bottles, the other bottles of liquor being kept not only in driver s cabin, in boxes, suit cases but also concealed below the ration bags, etc. ( 8 ) AS far as petitioners No. 1 is concerned, he is found to have unauthorisedly purchased and possessed 54 bottles of IMF liquor. The same line of reasoning would apply in case of petitioner No. 1 also as far as the intention to purchase 54 liquor bottles is concerned. ( 9 ) THUS, in my opinion, the principles laid down in the case of Ranjit Thakur (supra) will not be of any assistance to the petitioners. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petitioners, being devoid of substances, no judicial review of the sentence imposed is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 11 ) PETITION dismissed.