Back
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
A. Satis – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by Principle Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat – Respondent
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,
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by a borrowing authority are valid, and the punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct proven in the inquiry.
It is well settled, by a series of rulings of Apex Court and various High Courts including Court, that in a case where disciplinary authority and enquiry authority are two different functionaries, th....
Disciplinary authorities cannot subject a government servant to repeated inquiries on the same charges without proper justification, and must follow established procedures.
The High Court, under Article 227, upheld that disciplinary proceedings were lawfully conducted, with minor penalties validly imposed, affirming limited grounds for supervisory review over administra....
A mere error in jurisdiction without evidence of misconduct or personal gain cannot be termed as misconduct, making the employee liable to disciplinary proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
