1. A retired government official challenged the state's failure to disburse pensionary benefits, citing pendency of departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated shortly before retirement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Radhakrishnan P – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 332 OF 2026
Important Points
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to correcting manifest errors or perversities and cannot be used as an appellate court to review every interim order of a tribunal.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.227, Art.14, Art.300A
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: S.19
Kerala Service Rules: R.3A
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: S.19
Kerala Service Rules: R.3A
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - Scope and ambit - The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to a minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted. High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal; interference is warranted only when there is patent perversity, gross and manifest failure of justice, or the decision is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The respondent retired from service on 31.05.2024. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order directing the petitioners to complete the proceedings within one month. The petitioners challenged this order under Article 227, contending that the one-month timeline was impractical due to the seriousness of allegations and the pending vigilance report. However, it was noted that the petitioners had stated in their reply statement that six months were required to complete the proceedings but did not seek an extension from the Tribunal and instead approached the High Court after eight months.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no ground to hold that the Tribunal's interim order was patently illegal or perverse to warrant interference under Article 227. The petitioners' remedy lay in seeking an extension of time from the Tribunal rather than challenging the order in the High Court.
Issues: Whether the interim order of the Tribunal directing completion of disciplinary proceedings within one month was patently illegal or perverse enough to justify the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be used to correct every error of a tribunal; it is limited to cases of manifest error or perversity. Since the petitioners failed to seek a modification or extension from the Tribunal and instead approached the High Court after a significant delay, the order did not meet the threshold for interference.
Result: Original petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The respondent retired from service on 31.05.2024. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order directing the petitioners to complete the proceedings within one month. The petitioners challenged this order under Article 227, contending that the one-month timeline was impractical due to the seriousness of allegations and the pending vigilance report. However, it was noted that the petitioners had stated in their reply statement that six months were required to complete the proceedings but did not seek an extension from the Tribunal and instead approached the High Court after eight months.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no ground to hold that the Tribunal's interim order was patently illegal or perverse to warrant interference under Article 227. The petitioners' remedy lay in seeking an extension of time from the Tribunal rather than challenging the order in the High Court.
Issues: Whether the interim order of the Tribunal directing completion of disciplinary proceedings within one month was patently illegal or perverse enough to justify the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be used to correct every error of a tribunal; it is limited to cases of manifest error or perversity. Since the petitioners failed to seek a modification or extension from the Tribunal and instead approached the High Court after a significant delay, the order did not meet the threshold for interference.
Result: Original petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ann Maria Francis
For the Respondents: K. Sandesh Raja
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ann Maria Francis
For the Respondents: K. Sandesh Raja
Table of Contents
2. The state contested the tribunal's time-bound direction for concluding disciplinary proceedings as impracticable, while the respondent argued that the state failed to seek necessary extensions for ongoing proceedings. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. The tribunal's interim order is not patently illegal or perverse, as the state neglected its remedy to seek timely extensions from the tribunal for completing complex disciplinary inquiries. (Para 16 , 17 )
4. High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an appellate power and is reserved for cases involving patent perversity, manifest errors, or gross failure of justice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. The original petition is dismissed, granting the petitioners liberty to seek modification or extension of time for compliance from the tribunal. (Para 17 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
The jurisdiction is primarily supervisory, not appellate. The court interferes only if the tribunal's order is patently illegal, perverse, reflects a manifest error, or causes a gross failure of justice, ensuring that tribunals function within the bounds of their authority. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Can the High Court review a tribunal's interim order when the party has alternative procedural remedies?
No. When a party has failed to utilize available procedural remedies, such as moving the original tribunal to seek an extension of time or modification of an order, the High Court will not intervene under Article 227 unless the order is proved to be patently perverse. (Para 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The State and its officials, who are the respondents in O.A.(EKM) No.1 of 2026 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 interim order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The respondent, who retired from service on 31.05.2024 from the post of Senior Superintendent in the Revenue Department, filed O.A.(EKM) No.1 of 2026 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue appropriate direction or orders directing the respondents to sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits to the applicant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement including full pension, commuted pension and DCRG.
(ii) To issue appropriate direction or orders directing the respondents to award cost of the proceedings to the applicant”.
3. In the original application, the respondent-applicant contends that he is not granted pension and pensionary benefits on account of lapses on the part of petitioners 1 and 2 in completing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The respondent states that the non-completion of the disciplinary proceedings and non-granting of pension and pensionary benefits is violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are forbidden from taking shelter under Rule 3A of Part III of Kerala Service Rules for justifying non-sanctioning of pension and pensionary benefits, as they have wilfully submitted a charge memo in January 2024, which is three months before the retirement of the respondent, after withdrawing the earlier charge memo issued in the year 2022. In the original application, the respondent has sought an interim relief directing petitioners 1 and 2 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Annexure A2(a) charge memo dated 29.01.2024 issued by the 2nd petitioner at the earliest, subject to the result of the original application.
4. On 12.02.2026, when the original application came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed the impugned Ext.P2 interim order which reads thus;
“The applicant retired on 31.05.2024. While in service, departmental proceedings were initiated against him as is evident from Annexure A2(a) dated 29.01.2024. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was given to the applicant on 30.09.2025. The applicant has given the reply on 27.10.2025. Thereafter nothing is heard with regard to the finalisation of the proceedings. No show Cause notice also served on the applicant on the further steps to be taken. Considering the fact that the applicant had retired on 31.05.2024 and that the Memo of Charge was issued as early as in 29.01.2024, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the disciplinary Proceedings initiated as per Annexure A2(a) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Post after a month.”
5. After Ext.P2 interim order, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P3 reply statement dated 18.03.2026 in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(d) documents.
6. Purporting to be in compliance with Ext.P2 interim order, the 1st petitioner issued Ext.P4 order dated 05.06.2026, keeping the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in abeyance. The respondent then filed C.P.(EKM) No.48 of 2026 before the Tribunal seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioners alleging wilful disobedience of Ext.P2 interim order. In the contempt petition, the learned Government Pleader filed Ext.P5 statement dated 29.07.2026, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(d) documents. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present original petition.
7. Heard Smt. Ann Maria Francis, the learne
