The High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 allows for interference only in cases of gross injustice or procedural lapses, reaffirming that a probationer's termination must follow proper inquiry and performance assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.1213 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner, while working as a part-time sweeper in the District office of the Tourism Department, Wayanad, was appointed on promotion as a full-time sweeper and posted at Government Guest House, Sultan Bathery, as per Annexure A2 order dated 20.04.2022, but permitted to continue in the District office itself. She was on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years, which expired on 23.04.2023. She submitted Annexure A3 representation dated 15.05.2023 before the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director, for taking necessary action to declare her probation in the post. Since no action was taken, she submitted Annexure A4 and A5 representations dated 09.12.2023 before the 1^st respondent , State of Kerala and the 2^nd respondent Director, Tourism Department.

2.1. According to the petitioner, she submitted Annexure A6 complaint dated 25.05.2022 before the 2^nd respondent against the Deputy Director, District office, Tourism Department, Wayanad, alleging sexual harassment. Before taking any action in Annexure A6 complaint, the petitioner was served with Annexure A7 memo of charges dated 12.06.2023 alleging rude behaviour, insubordination and dereliction of duty. The petitioner submitted Annexure A8 reply dated 01.07.2023 denying the allegations. The petitioner states that without conducting a proper enquiry as prescribed in the Rules, the 2^nd respondent issued Annexure A9 show cause notice dated 23.04.2024 informing the provisional decision of the 2^nd respondent to terminate the probation of the petitioner in the post of full-time sweeper as a penalty. Annexure A10 copy of the enquiry report dated 20.12.2023 of the Joint Director, Tourism Department, was also annexed with Annexure A9 show cause notice. The petitioner submitted Annexure A11 reply dated 21.05.2024 to Annexure A9 show cause notice. However, the 2^nd respondent issued Annexure A1 order dated 20.07.2024 terminating the probation of the petitioner in the post of full-time sweeper as a punishment for her alleged misconduct and dereliction of duty. Hence, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , challenging Annexure A1 order.

2.2. In the original application, the 2^nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 03.09.2024 opposing the pleadings and reliefs. In the reply statement, it was contended inter alia that as per the letter dated 01.07.2022, the Deputy Director, Department of Tourism Wayanad, reported that on 30.06.2022, the petitioner entered his office cabin and, threatened him. Her action being a serious misconduct, she was served with a memo of charges for major penalties under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 [‘KCS (CC&A) Rules’ in short]. Subsequently, the Joint Director, Department of Tourism, Kozhikode, was entrusted with the formal inquiry into the charges. The Inquiry Officer conducted a formal inquiry and submitted Annexure A10 inquiry report, and based on that inquiry report, action was taken against the petitioner. The incident that led to the disciplinary proceedings occurred within the probation period of the petitioner. As per the report from the superior, her work and conduct during the period were not s