IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by a borrowing authority are valid, and the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct proven in the inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Murali Purushothaman, J.

The Original Petition (KAT) is filed by the applicant in T.A. No.2583 of 2012 (W.P.(C).No.2848 of 2008) challenging the order passed therein by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

2. The petitioner, while working as an Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) in the Kerala Police Service, was deputed as an Assistant Immigration Officer in the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) under the Ministry of Home Affairs at Meenampakkam Airport, Chennai, from 01.06.2000 onwards. On 15.04.2001, he cleared three passengers going to Muscat for boarding the Gulf Airlines Flight No. GF 069. He also cleared two passengers for British Airways Flight No. BA 036 going to London on the same day. Both flights were scheduled to take off almost simultaneously. Out of the 117 passengers, who obtained boarding passes from the Gulf Airlines Flight, only 114 passengers boarded and three were found missing. However, the said three passengers boarded the British Airlines Flight No. BA 036 and proceeded to London and they sought political asylum from the British Government as Afghans.

3. Alleging that the petitioner was careless in doing the immigration clearance of the aforesaid passengers, he was placed under suspension by the Chief Immigration Officer vide order dated 18.05.2001. Since the petitioner was working on deputation at BOI, the Chief Immigration Officer initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'CCS (CCA) Rules'). Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. After the enquiry, the Senior Immigration Officer, the Enquiry Officer, submitted Ext. P10 report on 26.11.2001 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

4. On repatriation, the petitioner was relieved of his duties in BOI, Chennai on 30.04.2002. Accordingly, the disciplinary enquiry files were transmitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), Kannur, the disciplinary authority of the lending authority through the Director General of Police, Kerala. The DIG concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and served Ext. P1 show cause notice dated 30.12.2002 on the petitioner proposing to impose a punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted Ext. P2 reply against the proposed punishment. The disciplinary authority overruled the objection and imposed punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, as per Ext. P3 order. The punishment imposed is a minor penalty under Rule 15 (1) (h) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 ('Rules', for short).

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules against Ext. P3 order before the Inspector General of Police, Northern Zone, Kozhikode. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by Ext. P4 order.

6. Against Ext. P4 order, the petitioner preferred Ext. P5 revision petition before the Government under Rule 36 of the Rules. The same was rejected by the Government by Ext. P6 order. In Ext. P6, it is stated that the Government took a tentative decision to modify the punishment of withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect awarded to the petitioner to that of withholding of increments for two years without cumulative effect and sought for the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. However, the Commission advised to reject the revision petition and to retain the punishment already awarded. The matter was again taken up with the Commission. The Commission maintained its earlier stand and the Government accepted the advice of the Commission and retained the punishment already awarded and rejected the revision petition. Though the petitioner preferred Ext. P7 petition before the Government, which is a non statutory representation, the same was rejected by Ext. P9 communication. The petitioner thus preferred W.P.(C) No.2848 of 2008 before