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 subordinate tribunal or consider new grounds of challenge not raised initially.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The applicant in O.A.No.564 of 2022 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.P7 order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application as well as the Ext.P9 order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal in R.A.No.3 of 2026 filed by the petitioner seeking review of Ext.P7 order.

2. The petitioner entered Government service as a Lower Division Clerk/Village Assistant in the year 2000 at Taluk Office, Punalur. While she was working as a Village Officer, she was placed under suspension on the allegation that she received a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to facilitate the removal of building waste with the help of a JCB from the property of one Gopakumar, which had been dumped in the property of one Ambika. Later, she was imposed with a punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect. Contending that there is no evidence to impose the aforesaid penalty, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.564 of 2022, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

“i) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the issuance of Annexures A7, A9 and A11 order barring increment for 2 years with cumulative effect and quash the same.

ii) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to quash Annexures A9 and A11 orders rejecting the appeal by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the rejection of the Review before the Government as the findings are based on mere assumptions and presumptions.

iii) To issue appropriate orders to quash Annexures A2, A7, A9 and A11 orders passed by the respondents as it is illegal arbitrary and without any evidence.

iv) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to regularize the period of suspension from 18.03.2017 to 12.12.2017 as duty for all purposes including increment promotion, pension and all other service benefits.

v) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to restore the benefits lost to the applicant due to the issuance of Annexures A7, A9 and A11 orders v(a)) To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to quash Annexure A4 formal enquiry report.”

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, a reply statement dated 24.03.2023 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for. Similarly, on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, a reply statement dated 30.06.2022 was filed refuting the averments in the original application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 14.06.2023 in the original application.

4. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2025 dismissed the original application. The petitioner then filed R.A.No.3 of 2026 before the Tribunal, contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned Ext.P7 order. But, by Ext.P9 order dated 09.01.2026, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application also. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court with this Original Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the re