Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Sebastian B. S/o Brunose J. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts leading to removal from police service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of rival arguments regarding criminal conduct and disciplinary proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. scope of high court's supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. application of legal principles to the specific case, holding that quashing of criminal charges does not invalidate departmental disciplinary findings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
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 4th 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 suc
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correcting patent perversity or manifest errors and cannot be exercised as an appellate authority to re-e....
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 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 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 jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit interference unless there is a gross error or violation of principles of natural justice in lower court or tribunal finding....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate; it is restricted to correcting manifest errors or perversity and cannot be invoked to reassess factual findings of a subo....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to correcting errors unless there's manifest injustice or a failure of natural justice.
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's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be employed to correct all errors of lower courts; it is exercised only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or manifest injustice.
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
