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-evaluate departmental findings, especially where police disciplinary actions for misconduct are independent of criminal outcomes.

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 4^th 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 successful completion of the same, he was posted at Kerala Armed Police Battalion-III. After one year, he was transferred to the District Police Headquarters at Kollam City, and his probation was also declared on completion of two years of service. While he was in service, the Inspector SHO, Kundara Police Station, forwarded Annexure A3 report dated 20.12.2022 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Kollam Rural, regarding the past and present criminal cases in which the petitioner was involved. In that report, it was stated that the petitioner was involved in six criminal cases before joining service, and he is involved in Crime No.1836 of 2022 of Kundara Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, r/w 149 of IPC as the 2^nd accused.

2.1 Based on that report, the 3^rd respondent Assistant Inspector General of Police, suspended the petitioner from service, vide Annexure A4 order dated 20.01.2023, and the Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta, was directed to conduct an enquiry and to file a charge memo in the matter within fifteen days. Pursuant to that direction, the Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta, has drawn Annexure A5 charge memo dated 24.02.2023, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is involved in a series of criminal cases before joining service and after joining service, he is involved in Crime No.1836 of 2022 of Kundara Police Station. To that charge memo, the petitioner filed Annexure A6 reply dated 26.03.2023, stating that he was wrongly implicated in Crime No.1836 of 2022. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was completed by the Inspector SHO of Sasthamcotta, and he submitted Annexure A7 PR Minutes along with the forwarding letter dated 04.06.2023 to the 3^rd respondent.

2.2 The 2^nd respondent, Kerala State Police Chief, by Annexure A8 letter dated 16.06.2023, served a copy of PR Minutes to the petitioner and directed him to submit his reply, if any, within fifteen days. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Annexure A10 show cause notice by the 3^rd respondent on 06.01.2024, stating that the petitioner failed to keep up the standard expected from a police constable and violated discipline and decorum of the police force by repeatedly being involved in criminal offences, which is revealed beyond doubt in the departmental enquiry. On finding that the petitioner is undisciplined as well as of poor character, which is not acceptable to a member of a disciplined department like the police force and therefore incompetent to continue in service, it was decided to remove him from service, and he was asked to reply within fifteen days to Annexure A10 notice. The petitioner, though, gave Annexure A12 reply to Annexure A10 show cause notice, stating that he was not involved in the criminal case, a