The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit interference unless there is gross violation of legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A. No.1371 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’, in short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P6 order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. During the pendency of this original petition, the original petitioner died and hence his wife, being the legal representative, is impleaded as additional 2^nd petitioner.

2. Going by the original application, the 1^st petitioner retired as Deputy Director of Survey, Pathanamthitta, on 31.03.2011. While working as Deputy Director of Survey, Kollam, in pursuance to the instructions from the Director of Survey, the 1^st petitioner disposed of a complaint made by one Shri Udayakumar, alleging irregularities in the Resurvey conducted on the land purchased and held by him in Adichanallur Village in Kollam District. He had followed all procedures before arriving at the decision and corrected the Resurvey records, under intimation to the Director of Survey. Subsequently, it was alleged that the 1^st petitioner made over puramboke land to a private party and thereby caused loss to the Government. Disciplinary action was initiated against the 1^st petitioner while in service and finalised long after his retirement, and his pension was reduced to the minimum. Challenging that decision, the 1^st petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2654 of 2013. The O.A. was disposed of, directing the 1^st petitioner to prefer a Review petition within a period of one month to the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent to dispose of the same within a period of three months, by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.02.2017. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner preferred the review petition on 01.03.2017, and the Department of Revenue, Survey and Land Records, vide GO (ord) 1710/2018/Revenue dated 16.05.2018, rejected the Review Petition. The facts of the case show that there was no loss of land to the Government, and the order of the Revenue is arbitrary, ultra vires and lacking any bona fides. Aggrieved by this order, the 1^st petitioner filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 , seeking an order to set aside the order of the 1^st respondent, reducing the pension of 1^st petitioner to the minimum and the subsequent order in the review petition and to direct the 1^st respondent to grant all retirement benefits to the 1^st petitioner from the date of his superannuation with interest and cost.

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, a reply statement dated 10.12.2018 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought. To that reply statement, the 1^st petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 04.02.2019, producing therewith Annexures A29 to A31 documents. Thereafter, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, a reply statement dated 12.07.2019 was filed. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 14.08.2019, dismissed the original application.

4. Being aggrieved, the 1^st petitioner filed the present original petition.

5. On 07.01.2021, when this original petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to produce a copy of the reply statement filed by the 1^st respondent in Annexure A11 O.A.No.2654 of 2013, within two weeks.

6. On 03.02.2021, when the original petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had made an application bef