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 administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.1683 of 2022 filed O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 and the applicant in O.A.No.1633 of 2021 filed O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the common order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 is currently working as a Sub Inspector (Grade) at Koothuparamba Police Station. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 joined service on 24.07.1984 as a Police Constable of District Armed Service, Kannur and retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2017. While the petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 was working as Police Constable attached to the Crime Squad of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panoor Circle and the petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 was working as Police Constable at Kolavalloor Police Station, both of them, as authorized by Deputy Superintendent of Police, proceeded to arrest one Vinodan who was an absconding accused in LP Case Nos.38 of 1998 and 39 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, which arose from Crime Nos.108 of 1996 and 112 of 1996 of Kolavalloor Police Station. On execution of the non- bailable warrant by the petitioners on 17.08.2004, the arrested person was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery and was remanded in judicial custody. The arrested person was later released on bail. However, subsequently it came to the knowledge that the arrested person was in fact not Vinodan but his younger brother Manojan, which, according to the petitioners, is due to the impersonation done by the said Manojan, in order to avoid the arrest of his brother Vinodan and to facilitate his marriage scheduled.

3. Consequent to the above incident, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, and both of them were suspended from service and an oral enquiry was initiated as provided under Rule 8(1)(iii) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 (‘KPDIP & A Rules’ for short). The disciplinary proceedings were finalised, vide order dated 24.02.2005, by awarding a minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The appeal and review petition submitted by the petitioners was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur and the Inspector General of Police, North zone, by the orders dated 31.10.2005 and 24.04.2006, respectively.

4. The petitioners plead that in respect of the incident, Crime No.329 of 2004 under Section 419 of IPC was registered against said Manojan, and he was convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for the said offence as per the judgment dated 15.03.2012 in C.C No.79 of 2007. After the said judgment, the petitioners submitted a review petition before the State Police Chief, but the same was returned stating delay. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 filed a review under Rule 36A of KPDIP & A Rules, which was rejected by the Government as per the order dated 26.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the respective original applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , before the Tribunal challenging the adverse orders against them and also seeking a direction against the District Police Chief, Kannur to regularise the suspension period of the petitioners as duty for the purpose of increment in addition to the regularisation already done for the purpose of pension and gratuity.

5. In O.A.No.1633 of 2021, the 5th respondent filed a reply statement dated 13.12.2021 oppo