Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 31. 3. 2002 (Annexure-P-1) and appellate order dated 3. 5. 2002 (Annexure-P-3) being illegal, arbitrary, harsh, against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional with a further prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits of continuous service. ( 2. ) THE petitioner before passing of the impugned order of punishment Annexure-P-1 dated 31. 3. 2003 was serving on the post of Constable under the respondents. At the relevant point of time, he was posted at Jabalpur under the Commandant, 6th Battalion, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur. ( 3. ) AS per the case of the petitioner, on 21. 8. 2001 while he was posted at Jabalpur, he received an information that his brother suffered a paralytic attack and he has to attend his brother immediately. Eventually, the petitioner prayed for grant of leave with permission to leave headquarters. His immediate superior officer, at the relevant point time was Shri R. P. S. Thakur, Company Commander, who did not allow him to go on leave. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Commandant (respondent No. 3) who relieved him granting four days earned leave. The petitioner proceeded on leave on 21. 8. 2001 at 8. 30 p. m. and this fact has also been recorded in the Roznamcha. ( 4. ) AFTER availing the leave and coming back on duty, the petitioner was served with a suspension order followed by a charge-sheet. The action was taken on the report of Shri Thakur. A charge was framed against the petitioner which reads thus: that on 21. 8. 2001 at about 8. 30 p. m. , petitioner visited the house of R. P. S. Thakur, Company Commander, d Company, situated in the Government Quarters of the Force Headquarters, and demanded that he should be forthwith granted leave and refusal to do so petitioner abused him and also threatened to see him later. ( 5. ) NEEDLESS to emphasis the petitioner refuted the charge. It has been contended by Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that except Shri R. P. S. Thakur none of the departmental witness has supported the case of the department. ( 5. ) NEEDLESS to emphasis the petitioner refuted the charge. It has been contended by Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that except Shri R. P. S. Thakur none of the departmental witness has supported the case of the department. He has also invited my attention to the statement of Witness No. 5 Ram Singh, Head Constable and contended that this witness has stated in the departmental inquiry that on refusal to grant leave by Shri Thakur the petitioner only raised his voice and said that "main Mar Jaunga". The statement of Ram Singh has been filed along with the return. By inviting my attention to cross-examination it has been contended by the learned Counsel that even in the cross-examination this departmental witness said that except saying "ghar Ke Saamne Mar Jaunga" the petitioner did not say anything. The inquiry officer on scanning the material placed on record gave a specific finding that the petitioner received information that his brother has suffered paralytic attack, as a result of which on 21. 8. 2001 he did go at 8. 30 p. m. to the house of Shri Thakur and requested him to grant leave. However, on expressing his inability to do so the petitioner became annoyed and misbehaved with him. He also gave threat that he will see him later on. According to the inquiry officer the petitioner misbehaved and lost, his tamper. The petitioner being a member of Special Armed Force, was expected from him to maintain the discipline. The inquiry officer found the charge to be proved. ( 6. ) THE disciplinary authority after x-raying the entire gamut, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after examining the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order Annexure-P-1 awarding punishment of removing him from service w. e. f. 1. 4. 2002. The petitioner assailed the order of his removal by filing a departmental appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order Annexure-P-3 passed by the respondent No. 2. Hence this petition has been filed. ( 7. ) SHRI Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no departmental witness except Shri Thakur has deposed in support of the charge framed against the petitioner. Hence this petition has been filed. ( 7. ) SHRI Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no departmental witness except Shri Thakur has deposed in support of the charge framed against the petitioner. Even if the entire episode is analyzed, according to the learned Counsel, since the petitioner received information in regard to the paralytic attack to his brother and in these facts and circumstances if on refusing the prayer to grant leave, the petitioner raised his voice and misbehaved, the gravity of the misconduct should have been quantified by awarding proper punishment, which according to the learned Counsel, cannot be severest i. e. "removal from service" in the peculiar facts and circumstances. It has also been contended on merit that looking to the evidence, no charge is proved against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Sidharth Sahara v. State of M. P. and Ors. 2005 (2) MPLJ 393 , Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi AIR2004 SC 2131 , 2004 (2 )CTC301 , 110 (2004 )DLT360 (SC ), 2004 (75 )DRJ71 , [2004 (101 )FLR193 ], [2004 (4 )JCR107 (SC )], JT2004 (3 )SC 384 , 2004 (3 )SCALE356 , (2004 )4 SCC560 , 2004 (2 )SLJ460 (SC ), (2004 )2 UPLBEC1294 , Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR1982 SC 1552 , [1982 (45 )FLR432 ], 1982 Lablc1790 , (1982 )II LLJ472 SC , 1982 (2 )SCALE942 , (1982 )3 SCC346 , [1983 ]1 SCR648 , 1982 (2 ) SLJ532 (SC ), 1982 (14 )UJ862 (SC ), Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. AIR1984 SC 914 , [1984 (48 )FLR417 ], (1984 )I LLJ546 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE474 , (1984 )2 SCC569 , [1984 ]3 SCR169 , 1984 (1 )SLJ569 (SC ), 1984 (16 )UJ523 (SC ) and Union of India and Anr. v. B. C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 750. ( 8. ) ON the other hand, Shri Awasthi, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that looking to the limited scope of judicial review since grave misconduct committed by the petitioner is duly proved and as he was a member of Special Armed Force, maintaining the decorum by him is presupposed and the petitioner should not have lost his tamper and should not have misbehaved with his superior officer. Advocate has submitted that looking to the limited scope of judicial review since grave misconduct committed by the petitioner is duly proved and as he was a member of Special Armed Force, maintaining the decorum by him is presupposed and the petitioner should not have lost his tamper and should not have misbehaved with his superior officer. Since he has misbehaved with the superior officer, the impugned order of removal from service, from any angle, cannot be said to be disproportionate. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed in part. ( 10. ) IT is no doubt true that only Shri R. P. S. Thakur, Company Commander has stated against the petitioner in regard to his misbehaviour on the relevant date and relevant point of time. However, it is equally true that the other departmental witnesses have also stated that the petitioner lost his tamper and raised his voice. Admittedly, RPS Thakur is the superior officer of the petitioner and the petitioner should have maintained the decorum, ethics and discipline. This is more so that the petitioner was a member of Special Armed Force. The question is, why the evidence of the superior officer, Company Commander Shri RPS Thakur should be disbelieved. There is no explanation in that regard. ( 11. ) IT is well settled in law that the judicial review in regard to the disciplinary proceeding as well as in regard to interference in the quantum of punishment is very narrow. If the finding of the disciplinary authority is based on evidence, the Courts normally should not interfere. But, it is equally true that in case the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate or shocks the judicial conscience, the Court can mould the relief either by directing the authority to reconsider the punishment imposed or by itself imposing, an appropriate punishment recording cogent reasons. ( 12. ) WHY the incident had occurred is also to be seen while judging the quantum of punishment whether it is shockingly disproportionate or not. It has come on record that the brother of the petitioner suffered a severe paralytic attack and the petitioner was called by his family members to attend him. ( 12. ) WHY the incident had occurred is also to be seen while judging the quantum of punishment whether it is shockingly disproportionate or not. It has come on record that the brother of the petitioner suffered a severe paralytic attack and the petitioner was called by his family members to attend him. In these facts and circumstances he rushed to the house of his immediate superior officer Shri Thakur, who at that time was serving on the post of Commander for the grant of leave. The petitioner was fully aware that Commander is not the authority to sanction his leave and the sanctioning authority is the Commandant, but, he maintained decorum and ethics and did not exceed the limit of discipline as he approached his immediate superior officer and not the Commandant who was authorised to sanction the leave. Since the request to grant the leave was bluntly refused by Commander Shri Thakur, the petitioner lost his tamper, since the scene of his ill brother who was under the paralytic attack, was before him, and thereafter only he approached to the Commandant, who is the sanctioning authority of the leave. Thus there is material to hold that by following the discipline as an obedient employee, the petitioner first approached his immediate superior officer Shri Thakur. There is nothing on record in order to show that Shri Thakur after consulting with respondent No. 3 stated to the petitioner that the leave cannot be granted. On the contrary it has come on record that on the refusal to grant leave by Shri Thakur the petitioner approached the leave sanctioning authority i. e. the Commandant and stated the entire cause for obtaining leave and he was kind enough to allow his leave. Thus in that situation, if the petitioner lost his tamper and misbehaved with Shri Thakur at his residence and raised the tone of his voice, though he exceeded the limit of decorum and the discipline, but the punishment of removal from service, in the peculiar facts and circumstances appears to be shockingly disproportionate and, therefore, a judicial review is required to be made. ( 13. ( 13. ) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances in place of punishment of removal from service, it would be appropriate to lower down the petitioner to initial pay scale of the post of Constable with a further punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 14 In the result the petition succeeds in part. The impugned order Annexure-P-1 dated 31. 3. 2002 passed by the Commandant (respondent No. 3) and order Annexure-P-3 dated 3. 5. 2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Special Armed Force, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2) are hereby quashed and in place of punishment of removal from service, the respondents are hereby directed to lower down the petitioner to his initial pay scale when he was taken in service on the post of Constable with a further punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.