WP(C) 6696/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hear d Mr. C Baruah, learned Central Govt. counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner was serving as a Naik with the 32 Rashtriya Rifles, when Summary Court Martial Proceeding was initiated against him for absence without l eave, under the provisions of Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950. According to the charge memo dated 16.2.2000, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 21 3 days from 27.6.1999 till 27.1.2000. In the Summary Court Martial Proceeding, t he petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and considering the gravity of the of fence, the punishment of dismissal from service was ordered against him. 3.1. Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly submits that the punishment was disproportionate to the proven charge and consid ering the nature of the charge, a lesser punishment should have been inflicted. 3.2. It is also contended that the plea of guilt has not been recorded verbat im during the Court Martial Proceeding and accordingly the same could not be mad e the basis for punishment to the petitioner. 4.1. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. C Baruah, learned Central Govt. counsel refers to his counter affidavit to show that the petitioner was given reasonabl e opportunity during the summary Court Martial Proceeding to defend the charge a nd an Assisting Officer was also provided under Rule 129 of the Army Rules and o ne Major H S Jattayan acted as a friend of the accused. The petitioner was furni shed the summary of evidence and the charge sheet and was also given time to pre pare his defence. The Central Govt. counsel submits that the petitioner had uneq uivocally pleaded guilty and his guilty plea has been recorded in due compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 115 of the Army Rules, 1954. In such c ircumstances Mr. Baruah contends that there can be no basis for holding that the re is any legal deficiency in the summary Court Martial Proceeding. 4.2. The learned Central Govt. counsel further submits that that for a discip lined force, unauthorized absence without intimation is a serious breach and pun ishment of dismissal cannot be considered to be a disproportionate punishment, w hen a soldier is found guilty of unauthorized absence. The learned counsel point s out the crucial period when the petitioner absented himself [i.e. the duration of the operation ’Vijay (Kargil War)], is not at all condonable and thus the d ismissal punishment is rightly ordered in the present facts. 5. The petitioner herein was a member of the armed forces where discipline is a matter of paramount importance. Absence without authorization is a serious breach in the Army Rules and the gravity of such breach gets magnified at times of war. 6. It cannot be ignored that by his deliberate absence, the petitioner refu sed to serve in the Kargil War and he reported back for duty only after the war was over. The vary fact that the petitioner abstained from duty during a war eme rgency shows that he lacks the necessary attribute and courage to serve as a sol dier in the Armed Forces. Under such circumstances, I do not see any justificati on to interfere with the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him. 7. As regard the submission made by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for th e petitioner that the guilty plea of the delinquent has not been recorded verbat im in the Court Martial Proceeding, there is nothing to show nor it is submitted that the petitioner had not pleaded guilty to the charge. summary Court Martial Proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with the norms in force and there is nothing to infer that the delinquent’s plea was not recorded in ve rbatim by the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly this contention of Mr. Chakraborty is found to be without any substance and the same is hereby rejected. 8. The scope for interference with punishment awarded is extremely circumsc ribed and unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, there may not be any justification to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority. 9. Having regard to a decision on this point and the one specifically relie d upon by the learned Central Govt. counsel reported in 2003 (3) SCC 309 in the case of Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India, I do not consider the punishment of dismissal to be disproportionate to the charge, considering that the petitioner unauthorizedly absented from his duty when his service was needed by the Nation for duty in the Kargil Sector. Under such circumstances, I see no scope to consi der a lesser punishment for the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ pe tition and the same is hereby dismissed.