The High Court, under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, cannot re-adjudicate findings of fact or substitute its own judgment for that of a tribunal unless the decision is palpably perverse, contrary to settled principles of law, or reflects a manifest failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in O.A.(EKM) No.1194 of 2020 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 the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent-applicant, while working as Head Warden at Sub Jail, Vadakara, was dismissed from service with effect from 09.08.2004 by Annexure A2 order dated 01.09.2004, on account of his conviction in S.C. No. 145 of 2001 by the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thalassery. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2008. Though the respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions against the conviction and sentence, the said appeal ended in dismissal. Later, by Annexure A3 order dated 04.04.2016 in Crl.R.P No.924 of 2013, this Court acquitted the respondent. Therefore, the respondent submitted Annexure A4 representation dated 18.08.2016 to the 1^st petitioner for full pay and allowance, which he would have been entitled to if he had not been dismissed from service, and also for pension and other retirement benefits. Since no action was taken on Annexure A4 representation, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. (EKM)No.1562 of 2018, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by Annexure A5 order dated 20.08.2018, directing the 1^st petitioner to consider the representation in accordance with the rules and to take an appropriate decision, after hearing the respondent. Thereafter, Annexure A4 representation was rejected by the 1^st petitioner by Annexure A1 order dated 07.05.2019. Though the Government approached the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition against Annexure A3 order of this Court, by Annexure A6 order dated 16.08.2022, the Apex Court dismissed that Special Leave Petition. Being aggrieved by the rejection of Annexure A4 representation, the respondent filed O.A. (EKM)No.1194 of 2020 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

“a) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexures Al and quash the same;

b) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant all the service benefits as if there was no order of dismissal, including arrears of pay and allowances within a time frame as might be found just and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal; c) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant pension and other retirement benefits as if the applicant had superannuated from service with effect from 30.04.2008 without break;

d) Direct the respondents to pay the applicant arrears of pay and allowances and other retirement benefits including pension with interest calculated @ 12% per annum with effect from the dates from which the arrears fell due month after month, up to the date of full and final settlement of the same”.

3. On behalf of the 1stpetitioner, a reply statement dated 15.12.2020 was filed in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for by the respondent.

4. After hearing both sides, and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, allowed the original application. Paragraphs 6 to 9 and the last paragraph of that order read thus;

“6. The claim of the applicant for pay and allowances and retirement benefits, consequent to the acquittal in a Criminal Case, is governed by Rule 18(iii)(b) of the Keral