JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1537 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P2 order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The petitioner, while working as a Senior Superintendent in the District Supply Office at Wayanad, superannuated on 30.04.2003. He was on deputation in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (the ‘KSCS Corporation’ for short) from 22.02.1997 to 15.05.2000. During that period, on the allegation of dereliction of duty on the issue of misappropriation of levy sugar by the transporting contractors, the petitioner was kept under suspension from 15.05.2000 and was later reinstated in service on 10.08.2001. 2.1. Though the petitioner was reverted to the parent department, the disciplinary proceedings were kept pending, stating the reason of pendency of the vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance department later dropped the allegations against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.11638 of 2011 and the same was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.1905 of 2012. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the 2 nd respondent, Director of Civil Supplies, dropped the entire proceedings against the petitioner by Annexure A2 proceedings dated 13.03.2012. In the light of Annexure A2 order, the Tribunal passed Annexure A3 order dated 10.03.2016 in the Transferred Application, directing the 2 nd respondent to take an appropriate decision with regard to the regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner. 2.2. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the 2 nd respondent issued Annexure A4 proceedings dated 12.05.2016, regularising the period of suspension as eligible leave and, in the absence of eligible leave, directed to treat the period of suspension as leave without allowance. Since Annexure A4 order was passed without hearing the petitioner, he approached the Government with Annexure A5 appeal dated 11.01.2017. As there was inordinate delay in disposing of Annexure A5 appeal, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.626 of 2018, which was disposed of by Annexure A6 order dated 08.03.2018, directing the Government to consider the appeal and pass orders in accordance with law. As there was inordinate delay in disposing of Annexure A5 appeal, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.626 of 2018, which was disposed of by Annexure A6 order dated 08.03.2018, directing the Government to consider the appeal and pass orders in accordance with law. In light of the direction contained in Annexure A6 order, the Government considered Annexure A5 appeal and passed Annexure A1 order dated 30.06.2018, wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the period of suspension was declined, stating that a civil appeal filed by the KSCS Corporation is pending. 2.3. The KSCS Corporation, meanwhile, filed O.S.No.430 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,69,956/- from the defendants therein. The defendants 1 to 10 therein are the contractors and legal heirs of the deceased contractors, and defendants 11 to 17 are officers in the Civil Supplies Corporation. Defendants 18 and 19 are the legal heirs of the deceased 11 th defendant. The petitioner was arrayed as the 13 th defendant in the said suit. On 13.01.2006, by Annexure A8 judgment, the said suit was rejected by the Sub Court since the balance court fee was not paid by the KSCS Corporation. Against Annexure A8 judgment, the KSCS Corporation filed R.F.A. No.390 of 2006 before this Court. The 14 th defendant in O.S. No.430 of 2002, namely, Shri. P. M. Abdul Jaleel, who was on deputation from the Civil Supplies Department to the KSCS Corporation, against whom the charges were dropped by Annexure A10 proceedings dated 26.08.2014, filed a petition for regularisation of his period of suspension from 15.05.2000 to 01.08.2001, and that period was regularised as duty for all purposes, limiting the salary during the period of suspension on subsistence allowance which he obtained during the relevant period, by Annexure A11 proceedings dated 25.10.2014 of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Contending that the petitioner is also entitled to the very same treatment as that of Shri. P. M. Abdul Jallel, who is similarly situated, the petitioner filed the original application, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs; “a) Call for the records leading to Annexure A1 and set aside Annexure A1 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the period of suspension from 15.05.2000 to 10.08.2001 as duty for all purpose and disburse the salary arrears. b) To direct the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to consider the period of suspension from 15.05.2000 to 10.08.2001 as duty for all purposes. c) To direct the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to refix the pay and allowances, and pensionary benefits regularizing the period of suspension as duty. d) To direct the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to grant notional promotion from the date when his junior was promoted and refix the pensionary benefits thereunder.” 3. On 14.03.2023, the Tribunal passed the impugned Ext.P2 order. Paragraphs 8 to 10 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus; “8. The applicant was placed under suspension as per orders issued in the year 2000, and he was reinstated in the year 2001. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant, which culminated in Annexure A4 order closing the proceedings against the applicant on the basis of the report received from the Vigilance, according to which there is no involvement of the applicant in the issue. The only reason stated for not regularising the suspension period as duty was the pendency of the Original Suit filed by the Supplyco on the ground that the applicant's liability was yet to be fixed. As pointed out by the applicant it is seen that the plaint itself was rejected by the Sub Court, Ernakulam as early as on 13.1.2006, though the applicant was defendant No.13 in that Original Suit. The R.F.A. filed against the said judgment is not even admitted even after more than 17 years of the judgment in O.S.No.430 of 2002. 9. Even otherwise, when the respondents have closed, the disciplinary action against the applicant, there is no justifiable reason for not regularising the suspension period as duty merely on the ground that final judgment is not rendered in the R.F.A. filed by the Civil Supplies Corporation. The order of suspension was in connection with the disciplinary action. When that disciplinary action was finalised, it is absolutely unnecessary for the respondents to await the judgment in a civil case in which only the liability, if any, was to be fixed. Suspension can only relate to departmental action. Therefore, the order Annexure A1 to the extent it refused to regularise the period of suspension of the applicant as duty, is set aside. 9. Suspension can only relate to departmental action. Therefore, the order Annexure A1 to the extent it refused to regularise the period of suspension of the applicant as duty, is set aside. 9. Therefore, at this distance of time after about 21 years of the order of suspension, we do not relegate the matter again to the respondents to issue orders relating to regularisation of the suspension period. 10. It is ordered that the period of suspension, i.e., from 15.5.2000 to 10.8.2021 shall stand regularised as duty for all purposes. On the basis of this, there shall be a direction to the respondents to revise and refix the pay of the applicant and refix the pensionary benefits due to the applicant. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is accordingly disposed of.” 4. Being aggrieved by the non-granting of relief (d) in the original application, i.e., to grant notional promotion from the date when the junior to the petitioner was promoted and to refix the pensionary benefits therein, the petitioner approached this Court with the present original petition. 5. In the original petition, it is contended by the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to consider and pass orders on the relief pertaining to notional promotion. During the period of these proceedings, the juniors to the petitioner were promoted, overlooking his seniority. Evidencing the same, the petitioner produced Ext.P3 order dated 18.07.2000 issued from the office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. 6. On 27.08.2025, when this original petition came up for consideration, we noticed that in Ext.P2 order dated 14.03.2023, the Tribunal has referred to the proceedings before this Court in a Regular First Appeal filed by the 3 rd respondent, KSCS Corporation, against the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.430 of 2002 by the Sub Court, Ernakulam. We therefore called for the Judges' papers in R.F.A. No.390 of 2006 filed by the KSCS Corporation Ltd. against the judgment in O.S.No.430 of 2002. From the Judges’ papers of R.F.A. No.390 of 2006, we found that on 22.08.2006, a Division Bench of this Court issued notice to the respondents-defendants in C.M.Appl No.873 of 2006 filed in that R.F.A for condonation of the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Notice on admission was also ordered in the appeal. From the Judges’ papers of R.F.A. No.390 of 2006, we found that on 22.08.2006, a Division Bench of this Court issued notice to the respondents-defendants in C.M.Appl No.873 of 2006 filed in that R.F.A for condonation of the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Notice on admission was also ordered in the appeal. However, by the judgment dated 12.12.2024, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, stating that in spite of repeated postings, no steps have been taken in the appeal, which is of the year 2006. 7. On 27.08.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for KSCS Corporation sought a short adjournment to get instructions through the Law Officer of the Corporation, who is on deputation from the Law Department, as to whether the dismissal of R.F.A.No.390 of 2006 for non-prosecution has already been brought to the notice of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation. The learned Senior Government Pleader also sought time to get instructions on the above aspect from the 1 st respondent State, and also the 2 nd respondent, the Director of Civil Supplies Corporation. The Registry was directed to return the Judges’ papers in R.F.A.No.390 of 2006. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, the learned Senior Government Pleader, and also the learned Standing Counsel for KSCS Corporation. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only grievance of the petitioner against the impugned Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal is that the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion from the date of the promotion of his immediate junior was not considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to the said relief, especially when considering the fact that the period of his suspension from 15.05.2000 to 10.08.2001 was regularised as duty for all purposes as per the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no delay in raising the said claim by the petitioner for the simple reason that the right for notional promotion arises only on the regularisation of the period of suspension as duty. Moreover, the petitioner had sought that relief in the original application. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Sl. Nos. 19 and 20 in Ext.P3 order dated 18.07.2000 issued from the office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies are juniors to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner had sought that relief in the original application. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Sl. Nos. 19 and 20 in Ext.P3 order dated 18.07.2000 issued from the office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies are juniors to the petitioner. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion was rightly not granted by the Tribunal, and no interference is needed on that order. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that the claim for notional promotion was not raised by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, which was finalised by Annexure A3 order dated 10.03.2016 in T.A.No. 1905 of 2012. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for KSCS Corporation would submit that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were ended in his favour, and the Regular First Appeal filed before this Court was not proceeded further due to the financial constraints of the Corporation to pay the court fee. It was for the very same reason the original suit was also happened to be rejected by the Sub Court, Ernakulam. 12. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 13. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 14. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 14. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ (2010) 9 SCC 385 ] , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 15. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [ (2015) 12 SCC 39 ] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 16. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 17. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 18. We have carefully perused the materials placed on record and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. The petitioner was under suspension while he was on deputation in the Civil Supplies Corporation from 15.05.2000 till 09.08.2001. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended in his favour. Though the Corporation has filed a civil suit against several persons claiming a huge amount, in which the petitioner was also one of the defendants, the suit, as well as the Regular First Appeal filed by the KSCS Corporation, ended in rejection and dismissal due to non-payment of the court fee and non prosecution respectively, for the best reason known to the Corporation alone. Since it is the Government which has to take action against the derelicting officers, if any, for not properly prosecuting the suit as well as the Regular First Appeal, causing huge loss to the Corporation, we are not entering into those aspects in this original petition as the same is not a matter in issue herein. However, from the impugned order of the Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a finding from the available materials that there is no justification for non- regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner as duty since all the departmental proceedings and legal proceedings ended in his favour. Moreover, against the said finding of the Tribunal, neither the Corporation nor the Government has moved any original petition before this Court. 19. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the right for notional promotion arises only after the regularisation of the suspension period as duty. Therefore, the non-granting of that relief in Annexure A3 order has no bearing on the present claim of the petitioner. From the relief (d) in the original application, it is gatherable that the petitioner has sought the relief of notional promotion and refixation of the pensionary benefits in the original application itself. The Tribunal failed to consider this pleading in the original application while passing the Ext.P2 order. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Ext.P2 order is to be modified by including a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion and refixation of pensionary benefits, if he is granted the notional promotion. In the result, this original petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to move an appropriate representation before the 2 nd respondent, Director of Civil Supplies Corporation, seeking notional promotion from the date of his junior was promoted and for necessary ancillary benefits within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and in case of receipt of any such representation from the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent Director of Civil Supplies shall consider the aforesaid request of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said representation.