Dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges:

Dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges:

 Whether the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The principles relating to judicial review of punishment imposed, as a part of the decision making process by Court Martial, have been explained, in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India – 1987 (4) SCC 611, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the punishment imposed by a court martial on the ground that it was strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of offence on the following reasoning: 

“Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision making process". 

The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and 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. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review.”