The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, may direct a quasi-judicial body to adjudicate upon specific reliefs pleaded in an original application that were inadvertently overlooked by the lower tribunal, provided such claims arise naturally from the regularization of service and suspension periods.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1537 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (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 14.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner, while working as a Senior Superintendent in the District Supply Office at Wayanad, superannuated on 30.04.2003. He was on deputation in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (the ‘KSCS Corporation’ for short) from 22.02.1997 to 15.05.2000. During that period, on the allegation of dereliction of duty on the issue of misappropriation of levy sugar by the transporting contractors, the petitioner was kept under suspension from 15.05.2000 and was later reinstated in service on 10.08.2001.

2.1. Though the petitioner was reverted to the parent department, the disciplinary proceedings were kept pending, stating the reason of pendency of the vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance department later dropped the allegations against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.11638 of 2011 and the same was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.1905 of 2012. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the 2^nd respondent, Director of Civil Supplies, dropped the entire proceedings against the petitioner by Annexure A2 proceedings dated 13.03.2012. In the light of Annexure A2 order, the Tribunal passed Annexure A3 order dated 10.03.2016 in the Transferred Application, directing the 2^nd respondent to take an appropriate decision with regard to the regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner.

2.2. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the 2^nd respondent issued Annexure A4 proceedings dated 12.05.2016, regularising the period of suspension as eligible leave and, in the absence of eligible leave, directed to treat the period of suspension as leave without allowance. Since Annexure A4 order was passed without hearing the petitioner, he approached the Government with Annexure A5 appeal dated 11.01.2017. As there was inordinate delay in disposing of Annexure A5 appeal, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.626 of 2018, which was disposed of by Annexure A6 order dated 08.03.2018, directing the Government to consider the appeal and pass orders in accordance with law. In light of the direction contained in Annexure A6 order, the Government considered Annexure A5 appeal and passed Annexure A1 order dated 30.06.2018, wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the period of suspension was declined, stating that a civil appeal filed by the KSCS Corporation is pending.

2.3. The KSCS Corporation, meanwhile, filed O.S.No.430 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,69,956/- from the defendants therein. The defendants 1 to 10 therein are the contractors and legal heirs of the deceased contractors, and defendants 11 to 17 are officers in the Civil Supplies Corporation. Defendants 18 and 19 are the legal heirs of the deceased 11^th defendant. The petitioner was arrayed as the 13^th defendant in the said suit. On 13.01.2006, by Annexure A8 judgment, the said suit was rejected by the Sub Court since the balance court fee was not paid by the KSCS Corporation. Against Annexure A8 judgment, the KSCS Corporati