Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Ajith Kumar K. S/o Kunjan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding the applicant and disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. relief sought by the petitioner in the tribunal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. scope of article 227 of the constitution. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. supervisory jurisdiction of the high court. (Para 10 , 15) |
| 5. distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. nature of acquittal in criminal cases. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. conclusion on dismissal and reasoning. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
1. The applicant in O.A. No.2162 of 2023 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.P1 order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. While working as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) at the Kollam East Police station, he was arrayed in Crime No.687 of 2011 of Kollam East Police station registered under Sections 324, 326, 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal C
The distinction between the standards of proof in disciplinary and criminal proceedings is critical; mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically negate findings in disciplinary actions b....
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 administra....
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
The court upheld that the High Court's supervisory role under Article 227 limits intervention to severe errors, while reaffirming settled matters should not be reopened.
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 inq....
The court emphasized that the enhancement of penalty, the nature of the petitioner's acquittal, and the proportionality of the punishment were crucial in reaching its decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
