The plea of guilty by the petitioner rendered the compliance with the principles of natural justice unnecessary, and the doctrine of proportionality has no independent legal existence in administrative law.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case was a Gunner working in the office of respondent No. 3. He proceeded on 36 days annual leave from 26/01/1992 to 3/03/1993. The said leave was allegedly sanctioned by the respondent no. 3. Allegedly, while availing the said leave, he fell into a khud in his village on 26/02/1992, as a consequence whereof, he sustained contusion in his right leg. He was taken to the nearby doctor at Thural, Himachal Pradesh and he was under his treatment from 26/02/1992 to 9/03/1992. He allegedly was admitted to the Government Medical College at Thural wherein also he remained under treatment from 10/03/1992 to 15/04/1992. A purported information to the said effect was sent to the Commanding Officer of the Unit of the petitioner. The petitioner rejoined his duties on 23/04/1992 and produced his medical certificate. On 25/04/1992, he was informed that he would be tried by a Summary Court Martial. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:

"aa SEC 39 (b) without SUFFICIENT CAUSE overstaying LEAVE GRANTED TO HIM, in that he, at field on 13/01/1992, having been granted leave of absence from 13/01/1992 to 17/02/1992 to proceed to his home, failed without sufficient cause to rejoin at unit lines on 17/02/1992 on expiry of the said leave until rejoined voluntarily at 1600 hour on 23/04/1992. (Total period of absence 65 days)"

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, prior thereto neither any charge-sheet was served on him nor any list of witnesses was furnished nor any defence assistance was rendered to him. On 29/04/1992, he was allegedly taken to the court Martial enquiry and in the absence of any charge-sheet, list of witnesses or list of material documents, he could neither defend his case nor cross-examine the witnesses. He even could not lead evidence on his own behalf. He was found guilty of the charges.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was dismissed from service in view of the enquiry report of the same date. But later, on a post-confirmation petition made in terms of Section 106 of the Army Act, the sentence of dismissal was modified to that of discharge on humanitarian grounds by order dated 29/04/1993.

( 4 ) THE writ petition has been filed questioning the said order.

( 5 ) THE contention of the respondents, on the other hand, was that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges. He consciously declined to cross- examine the witnesses and lead any evidence on his own behalf. He even issued a certificate to the effect that all formalities as are required in law had been complied with and he would not question the order before any court of law.

( 6 ) MR. Nigam, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner would urge that in the instant case, all procedural requirements had been violated. The learned counsel would contend that a friend was appointed but he did not render any assistance whatsoever. He even did not cross-examine the witnesses. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner s signature had been obtained by the third respondent on some typed papers without explaining the contents thereof to him. The learned counsel would further contend that even on the document containing the purported admission, his signature had not been obtained. In any event, it was submitted, the quantum of punishment meted out to him being disproportionate, this court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would interfere therewith. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on Lt. Col. Prithvi Pal singh Bedi v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1982 SC 1413, Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. , (1987) 4 SCC 611, Union of India and Anr. v. B. C. Chaturvedi, (1995) 6 SCC 750, Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham. (1997) 7 SCC 463 and Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India. JT 2000 (Suppl. 3) SC 92.

( 7 ) MR. Amit Bansal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has produced the original records of the matter and submitted