Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 633 (KER)

Sebastian B. S/o Brunose J. v. State of Kerala

2026-06-05

Anil K Narendran, Muralee Krishna S

body2026
JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No.705 of 2025 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.P2 order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver Civil Police Officer by the 4 th respondent Commandant, Kerala Armed Force Battalion-III, Pathanamthitta, pursuant to a recruitment process undertaken by the Kerala Public Service Commission. He joined for training on 19.11.2019, and on successful completion of the same, he was posted at Kerala Armed Police Battalion-III. After one year, he was transferred to the District Police Headquarters at Kollam City, and his probation was also declared on completion of two years of service. While he was in service, the Inspector SHO, Kundara Police Station, forwarded Annexure A3 report dated 20.12.2022 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Kollam Rural, regarding the past and present criminal cases in which the petitioner was involved. In that report, it was stated that the petitioner was involved in six criminal cases before joining service, and he is involved in Crime No.1836 of 2022 of Kundara Police Station, registered under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, r/w 149 of IPC as the 2 nd accused. 2.1 Based on that report, the 3 rd respondent Assistant Inspector General of Police, suspended the petitioner from service, vide Annexure A4 order dated 20.01.2023, and the Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta, was directed to conduct an enquiry and to file a charge memo in the matter within fifteen days. Pursuant to that direction, the Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta, has drawn Annexure A5 charge memo dated 24.02.2023, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is involved in a series of criminal cases before joining service and after joining service, he is involved in Crime No.1836 of 2022 of Kundara Police Station. To that charge memo, the petitioner filed Annexure A6 reply dated 26.03.2023, stating that he was wrongly implicated in Crime No.1836 of 2022. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was completed by the Inspector SHO of Sasthamcotta, and he submitted Annexure A7 PR Minutes along with the forwarding letter dated 04.06.2023 to the 3 rd respondent. To that charge memo, the petitioner filed Annexure A6 reply dated 26.03.2023, stating that he was wrongly implicated in Crime No.1836 of 2022. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was completed by the Inspector SHO of Sasthamcotta, and he submitted Annexure A7 PR Minutes along with the forwarding letter dated 04.06.2023 to the 3 rd respondent. 2.2 The 2 nd respondent, Kerala State Police Chief, by Annexure A8 letter dated 16.06.2023, served a copy of PR Minutes to the petitioner and directed him to submit his reply, if any, within fifteen days. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Annexure A10 show cause notice by the 3 rd respondent on 06.01.2024, stating that the petitioner failed to keep up the standard expected from a police constable and violated discipline and decorum of the police force by repeatedly being involved in criminal offences, which is revealed beyond doubt in the departmental enquiry. On finding that the petitioner is undisciplined as well as of poor character, which is not acceptable to a member of a disciplined department like the police force and therefore incompetent to continue in service, it was decided to remove him from service, and he was asked to reply within fifteen days to Annexure A10 notice. The petitioner, though, gave Annexure A12 reply to Annexure A10 show cause notice, stating that he was not involved in the criminal case, and moreover, the same is quashed by this Court as per Annexure A11 order dated 11.01.2023 in Crl.M.C.No.9238 of 2022, by Annexure A13 proceedings dated 04.03.2024 of the 3 rd respondent, he was removed from service. 2.3 Against Annexure A13 order, the petitioner preferred Annexure A14 appeal dated 18.03.2024 before the 2 nd respondent. However, by Annexure A15 order dated 24.06.2024, the 2 nd respondent dismissed the appeal. The petitioner again preferred Annexure A16 appeal dated 07.07.2024 before the 1 st respondent against Annexure A15 order of the 2 nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1891 of 2024 before the Tribunal challenging Annexure A13 order whereby he was removed from service. By Annexure A17 order dated 09.12.2024, the Tribunal disposed of that original application, directing the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders in Annexure A16 representation after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the petitioner was heard on 07.02.2025 by the 1 st respondent. By Annexure A17 order dated 09.12.2024, the Tribunal disposed of that original application, directing the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders in Annexure A16 representation after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the petitioner was heard on 07.02.2025 by the 1 st respondent. However, by Annexure A19 order dated 28.02.2025, the 1 st respondent dismissed the appeal, reiterating the findings in Annexure A15 order. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.705 of 2025, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs: “1. To pass an order declaring that Annexure A13 and A19 of the 3 rd and 1 st respondents are illegal, improper and arbitrative hence are only worthy to be set aside. 2. An order may be passed directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to declare that the applicant is eligible to continue in service from 20.01.2023 with retrospective effect for all benefits. 3. Pass an order declaring that the applicant is eligible for service, salary and other allowances.” 3. The 2 nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 12.06.2025 in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for. Similarly, the 1 st respondent also filed a reply statement dated 17.10.2025 in the original application, refuting the averments in the original application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 06.11.2025 to which the 2 nd respondent filed an additional reply statement dated 28.01.2026. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 impugned order dated 20.02.2026, dismissing the original application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner initially approached this Court by filing O.P.(KAT)No.101 of 2026. However, on 08.04.2026, when the O.P.(KAT)No.101 of 2026 was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw that original petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh original petition challenging the very same order, since certain inadvertent mistakes had crept in while drafting the original petition. In view of the aforesaid submission, by Ext.P7 judgment dated 08.04.2026, this Court dismissed O.P.(KAT)No.101 of 2026 as withdrawn, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh original petition challenging the impugned Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal, with appropriate pleadings and reliefs. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present original petition, i.e., O.P.(KAT)No.154 of 2026. In view of the aforesaid submission, by Ext.P7 judgment dated 08.04.2026, this Court dismissed O.P.(KAT)No.101 of 2026 as withdrawn, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh original petition challenging the impugned Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal, with appropriate pleadings and reliefs. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present original petition, i.e., O.P.(KAT)No.154 of 2026. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the six criminal cases in which the petitioner was involved prior to his selection to the post of Driver Civil Police Officer were politically motivated cases registered due to his affiliation with a political party. The subsequent criminal case, i.e., Crime No.1836 of 2022, registered against the petitioner in Kundara Police Station, was on the basis of a mistaken statement given by the de facto complainant therein, and the said criminal case was quashed by this Court as per Annexure A11 order dated 11.01.2023. In Annexure A9 report submitted by the 5 th respondent to District Police Chief, Kollam, it is stated that such criminal cases usually occur against the social activists and politicians involved in various issues in the society. Without considering all these aspects, Annexure A7 PR report was submitted against him, and the disciplinary proceedings were finalised. The Tribunal failed to consider these aspects in their proper perspective. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner is involved in six criminal cases prior to his joining service. After joining the service also he involved in another criminal case, which resulted in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The quashing of the subsequent criminal case registered against the petitioner is not a ground to hold that the findings in the disciplinary proceedings are illegal. The petitioner has the antecedents and subsequent conduct unbecoming of a member of a police force, and therefore, no interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. We have carefully perused the materials placed on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar. The petitioner was admittedly involved in six criminal cases prior to his joining service. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the light of his subsequent involvement as the 2 nd accused in Crime No.1836 of 2022 of Kundara Police Station registered under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC . After issuance of the memo of charges, Annexure A7 PR Minutes was submitted by the inspector SHO, Sasthamcotta to the 3 rd respondent, in which the charges against the petitioner were found proved. Though the petitioner challenged Annexures A13 order dated 04.03.2024 of the 3 rd respondent, whereby he was removed from service and A19 order dated 28.02.2025 of the 1 st respondent, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Government, he did not challenge the findings in Annexure A7 PR Minutes. The findings in Annexure A7 PR Minutes are very serious and unbecoming of a police officer. 14. As rightly found by the Tribunal, quashing of criminal proceedings is not a ground to hold the departmental proceedings as vitiated. From Annexure A11 order of this Court, it can be gathered that it is not an honourable acquittal, but on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties, the said criminal case was quashed by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. From Annexure A11 order of this Court, it can be gathered that it is not an honourable acquittal, but on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties, the said criminal case was quashed by this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction. In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.