JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 104/2016 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the writ petition, he has filed the instant writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, the writ appellant will be referred to the petitioner hereafter. 3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant writ appeal is that the petitioner was a Police Constable in the 1st Bn. MAP. He was issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 18.02.2015 whereby, he was charged of having intentionally shot himself on his right calf with his service rifle so that he would be transferred out from Zohmun Border Outpost (BOP) to the Battalion Headquarters. The petitioner instead of reporting that he shot himself, he informed his Superior Officers, that had been attacked by HPC(D) and in the attack, he had been shot by the militant group. Against the memorandum of charge, the petitioner submitted his statement in defense on 04.03.2016 admitting to the charge and asking the authority to pardon his action and that he would not repeat the same in future. However, the respondents authorities decided to proceed with the matter and appointed a Presenting Officer and a Enquiry Officer vide Order dated 05.03.2015. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner were established and proved and resultantly, the disciplinary authority, after issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner, removed him from service vide Order dated 18.06.2015. 4. Challenging his removed from service, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 104/2016 before the learned Single Judge where 2 (two) grounds were urged by the counsel for the writ petitioner. Firstly, the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 was not framed as per Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 and that the same should be framed by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or the Director General of Police (DGP) and approved by the Government as per Section 12 of the said Act. Secondly, it was argued that the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner was disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed. 5. Secondly, it was argued that the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner was disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed. 5. Answering the first ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge held that in the introduction of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 it has been clearly mentioned that the Manual is prepared in exercise of the powers conferred by the relevant provisions of the Police Act, (Act-V of 1861) as applied to Mizoram and also the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act-II of 1974). That the State Government after consulting the DGP, had framed the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. Further, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in N. Mani vs. Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278 , misquoting of provisions of law being not fatal if the source of power is traceable to the enactment concerned, the first ground taken was decided against the petitioner. 6. As regards, the second issue which was on the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge was of the view that in view of the admission on the part of the writ petitioner to the charges framed, his conduct and importantly, the limited scope for interference with the penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority as opined by the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. J.P. Saraswat, (2011) 4 SCC 545 came to a finding that the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner did not appear to be excessive and moreover when there was no allegation of mala fides made by the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 7. Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be of a serious nature warranting the ultimate penalty of removal from service. The same is highly disproportionate and considering the fact that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family, the impugned penalty should be interfered with and the appellant may be imposed with a lesser punishment other than removal from service. The same is highly disproportionate and considering the fact that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family, the impugned penalty should be interfered with and the appellant may be imposed with a lesser punishment other than removal from service. She also submits that it was the petitioner who sustained the injury and harm was not directed to any other person and moreover, there were no eye witnesses to the alleged shooting of the petitioner by himself and therefore, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be modified with a lesser punishment. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, (2022) 1 SCC 373 . 8. Per contra, Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate submits that despite the fact that the petitioner admitted to the charge, the respondent authorities proceeded with the departmental proceedings and in which, due opportunity to avail for a defense assistant and to cross-examine the state witness was given to the petitioner. However, he declined to avail for a defense assistant and also declined to cross-examine the witnesses. To the show-cause notice issued to him, during the preliminary enquiry as well as after the enquiry report was submitted, the petitioner admitted to the charges and sought for leniency. In respect of the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate submits that the same does not call for any interference and the learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere with the penalty imposed. The writ appeal according to the learned Government Advocate has no merit and therefore should be dismissed. 9. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have also perused the materials available on record including the departmental proceeding records produced by the learned Government Advocate. 10. As may be seen from the proceedings during departmental enquiry, it was not the case of the petitioner that there was defect in the framing of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. Such objection was taken when the petitioner filed his writ petition through his appointed counsel. The objection taken has been answered by the learned Single Judge by adopting the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in N. Mani (supra). Such objection was taken when the petitioner filed his writ petition through his appointed counsel. The objection taken has been answered by the learned Single Judge by adopting the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in N. Mani (supra). This finding has not been questioned or disputed by the petitioner in the instant appeal and therefore, we find no reason to revisit this issue. 11. The issue raised by the petitioner in this appeal through her counsel is with regard to the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon him. A perusal of the records produced goes to show that the petitioner has admitted the charges framed against him and sought for leniency. During the enquiry proceedings as many as 10 statements witnesses were examined in all and after each of the state witnesses were examined, the petitioner was asked as to whether he would like to cross-examine them but he declined to do so. The records also show that he declined to avail the service of a defense assistant. The enquiry officer found all the charges proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was then given a copy of the enquiry report and asked to show-cause as to why he should not be imposed with a penalty of removal from service. In reply, the petitioner admitted his fault and prayed for leniency stating that he is the sole bread winner of the family and his health condition was not good. Therefore, as regards to the charge being proved, we have no reason to have a different opinion. 12. As for the proportionality on penalty imposed, the admitted position in law is that the scope is very limited. Unless penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct, Court generally refrain from interfering. In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the well settled principles of law regarding the scope for interference by the Court on a penalty imposed was reiterated. Unless penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct, Court generally refrain from interfering. In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the well settled principles of law regarding the scope for interference by the Court on a penalty imposed was reiterated. The Apex Court by referring to its earlier decision in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 opined that the disciplinary authority being the fact finding authority has the exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline and is invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. It further observed that even in such a case where the punishment is set aside being shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with a direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 13. Coming back to the present case the petitioner has admitted to the charges and the charges have also been proved against him. The petitioner is also a member of a disciplined force and therefore, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be excessive. Thus, upon considering the matter in its entirety, we do not find any ground to disagree with a view taken by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.