Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Sudheer U.S, W/O Unni Pillai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary To Government, Health Ad Family Welfare Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorised absences justified by family illnesses but not regularised. (Para 2) |
| 2. parties contest punishment severity and leave rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. no grounds for supervisory interference; petition dismissed. (Para 5 , 15) |
| 4. article 227 limits high court interference to perversity cases. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The applicant in O.A.No.115 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.P4 order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioner, who is a physically disabled person suffering from 50% disability due to post-polio residual paralysis, is now working as a Junior Health Inspector Grade I at Family Health Centre, Veli, under the Health Services Department. While working at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Azhoor, in the year 2013, he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 15.04.2013 to 19.08.2013. According to the petitioner, during that period, he had to encounter a lot of f
Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited; no interference absent perversity or injustice in tribunal orders on disciplinary punishments.
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.
High Court's Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; no interference absent patent perversity or grave injustice in tribunal orders.
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 mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be grounds for denying provisional promotion to a qualified member of the feeder category.
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 High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit interference unless there is gross violation of legal principles.
The High Court affirmed the finality of the Tribunal's decision regarding leave recognition, emphasizing strict compliance by the Government with Tribunal's orders.
The period for passing departmental tests under Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules is calculated from the date of vacancy, not the order of promotion.
Court affirmed that compassionate grounds can influence transfer decisions; the authority's discretion prevails unless there's a clear breach of rights or malafide actions.
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
