Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited; no interference absent perversity or injustice in tribunal orders on disciplinary punishments.

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 financial, mental and physical hardships due to the illness of his nine-month-old girl child, who had to undergo surgery for Bladder Exstrophy and therefore, he could not even file a proper leave application. Though after returning to duty, he filed an application for eligible leave, which was in his credit, the Medical Officer in charge of the PHC refused to accept the leave application and reported to the District Medical Officer as unauthorised absence.

2.1. Upon the report of the Medical Officer in charge of the Primary Health Centre, the District Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner for unauthorised absence. Thereafter, the petitioner- applicant had been transferred to the Primary Health Centre, Puthenthoppu. However, the petitioner was again unauthorisedly absent from duty between 06.01.2015 and 04.10.2015. The explanation of the petitioner for the aforesaid absence is the illness of his mother, who was suffering from Breast Cancer. The petitioner contends that he was mentally unstable to file a leave application for the aforesaid period, and therefore informed about his absence only over the phone. After rejoining duty on 05.10.2015, the petitioner submitted a leave application applying for the eligible leave which was available in his credit. But the Medical Officer refused to accept the leave application and reported to the District Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, as unauthorised absence, and the District Medical Officer had initiated disciplinary action. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent, Director of Health Services, had taken up the matter, being the appointing authority of the petitioner to initiate disciplinary action. The 2^nd respondent then issued a memo of charges to the petitioner for alleged unauthorised absence for the aforesaid two periods.

2.2. The petitioner submitted a written defence statement through the Head Office elucidating the agony and circumstances he had to suffer during the period of absence, and requested exoneration by submitting the records of treatment of both his daughter and mother. After issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner informing the provisional decision to punish him with barring one increment without cumulative effect for one year and to treat the period of absence as non-duty, the 2^nd respondent finalised the proceedings by Annexure A5 order dated 15.10.2018, awarding the punishment of barring one increment without cumulative effect and treating the period of absence as non-duty. The petitioner then approached the 1^st respondent with an appeal, which was forwarded through the Medical Officer in charge with Annexure A6 covering letter. After about one year, the 1^st respondent, by Annexure A7 order dated 08.02.2021, informed the petitioner that