Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Madhusoodhanan T.M – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary Home & Vigilance – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary proceedings initiation and implications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. responses and appeals to disciplinary actions (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. jurisdiction of high court under article 227 (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. judicial review of tribunal's decisions (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.1683 of 2022 filed O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 and the applicant in O.A.No.1633 of 2021 filed O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the common order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ for short).
2. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 is currently working as a Sub Inspector (Grade) at Koothuparamba Police Station. The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2026 joined service on 24.07.1984 as a Police Constable of District Armed Service, Kannur and retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2017. While the petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.56 of 2026 was working as Police Constable attached to the Crime Squad of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panoor Circle and the petitioner in O.P.(KAT)
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 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'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 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'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 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 is not appellate; it is restricted to correcting manifest errors or perversity and cannot be invoked to reassess factual findings of a subo....
Disciplinary authorities cannot subject a government servant to repeated inquiries on the same charges without proper justification, and must follow established procedures.
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.
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
