JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. The applicant in O.A.No.564 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (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.P7 order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application as well as the Ext.P9 order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal in R.A.No.3 of 2026 filed by the petitioner seeking review of Ext.P7 order. 2. The petitioner entered Government service as a Lower Division Clerk/Village Assistant in the year 2000 at Taluk Office, Punalur. While she was working as a Village Officer, she was placed under suspension on the allegation that she received a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to facilitate the removal of building waste with the help of a JCB from the property of one Gopakumar, which had been dumped in the property of one Ambika. Later, she was imposed with a punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect. Contending that there is no evidence to impose the aforesaid penalty, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.564 of 2022, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs; “i) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the issuance of Annexures A7, A9 and A11 order barring increment for 2 years with cumulative effect and quash the same. ii) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to quash Annexures A9 and A11 orders rejecting the appeal by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the rejection of the Review before the Government as the findings are based on mere assumptions and presumptions. iii) To issue appropriate orders to quash Annexures A2, A7, A9 and A11 orders passed by the respondents as it is illegal arbitrary and without any evidence. iv) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to regularize the period of suspension from 18.03.2017 to 12.12.2017 as duty for all purposes including increment promotion, pension and all other service benefits. v) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to restore the benefits lost to the applicant due to the issuance of Annexures A7, A9 and A11 orders v(a)) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to quash Annexure A4 formal enquiry report.” 3. v) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to restore the benefits lost to the applicant due to the issuance of Annexures A7, A9 and A11 orders v(a)) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to quash Annexure A4 formal enquiry report.” 3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1 st respondent, a reply statement dated 24.03.2023 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for. Similarly, on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, a reply statement dated 30.06.2022 was filed refuting the averments in the original application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 14.06.2023 in the original application. 4. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2025 dismissed the original application. The petitioner then filed R.A.No.3 of 2026 before the Tribunal, contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned Ext.P7 order. But, by Ext.P9 order dated 09.01.2026, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application also. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court with this Original Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner are in violation of natural justice. The opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer is denied to the petitioner. Though the petitioner raised these contentions in the Review Application, the same were not properly considered by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the non-granting of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer was not taken as a ground in the original application to challenge the disciplinary proceedings. Such a ground was taken by the petitioner for the first time while filing the Review Application before the Tribunal, and untenable contentions are raised by the petitioner with a view to escape from the disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of penalty. 8. 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. 9. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 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. 14. We have carefully perused the materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar. The petitioner was imposed with a penalty of barring two increments with cumulative effect on the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, vide charge memo and statement of allegations dated 27.03.2017, on the allegation that she obtained a bribe of Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal considered the original application on merits and arrived at a finding that the allegation against the petitioner was proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Paragraph 7 of the impugned Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal reads thus; “7. The applicant was placed under suspension on 18.03.2017. While the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, she was reinstated to service on 12.12.2017. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant vide memo of charges and statement of allegations dated 27.03.2017 was concluded after meeting the procedural requirements in terms of a formal enquiry, show cause notice and getting her explanation. The applicant has no contention that the punishment order was issued without giving her an opportunity to present her side. Annexure-A4 report of formal enquiry has come to the conclusion that the allegation that the applicant had threatened to initiate criminal proceedings and obtained a bribe of Rs.20,000/- which was later returned is to be admitted as proven as there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of Ambika and the Driver. The mismatch in the statements of the applicant and the Village Field Assistant, who accompanied the applicant to the site, was proved at the time of site inspection by the Inquiry Officer. The mismatch in the statements of the applicant and the Village Field Assistant, who accompanied the applicant to the site, was proved at the time of site inspection by the Inquiry Officer. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was considered by the appellate authority and later by the review authority and the same was confirmed. We find that the disciplinary authority has come to the decision to award the punishment after complying with the procedure prescribed in this regard, and no mala fide could be proved in arriving at such a decision. This Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with the punishment awarded.” 15. Though the petitioner now contends that there was no opportunity for her to cross-examine the witnesses during the enquiry proceedings, there was no such pleading in the original application. Though the petitioner filed a Review Application before the Tribunal, raising some contentions against the way in which the formal enquiry was held, the Tribunal did not find merit in those contentions. The Tribunal found that even in the amended original application, no fresh contentions were raised against the formal enquiry. 16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders of the Tribunal which warrants interference by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . In the result, this original petition stands dismissed.