Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Anasmohammed.M on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 310 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2023 IN OA NO.1940 OF 2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONERATE,TRANS TOWERS,
VAZHUTHAKKADU,THYCAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.,
PIN - 695034
BY ADV B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA
ANASMOHAMMED.M,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O. MOHAMMED ASHARAF,
MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR,REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
ATTINGAL - 695101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT
DARUL AMANA, DARSANA SCHOOL ROAD,VALICODE, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695541
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.SHAJI, SHRI.MOHANAN C.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents in O.A.No.1940 of 2020 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 the order dated 04.04.2023
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. According to the respondent-applicant, he is working
as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, and
is aggrieved by Annexures A8 and A10 orders issued by the 1 st
petitioner. The main charges levelled against the respondent in the
Memo of Charges and Statement of Allegations are that the
respondent, while working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub
R.T.Office, Tirur, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau
conducted a surprise inspection in the Motor Driving test ground
at Unniyal Fisheries Ground on 29.07.2017, and seized some
application forms and Office seal from the possession of one
Suresh Kumar, a third person, alleging that the said person had
collected some amounts from the participants on behalf of the
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
respondent. But no material evidence had been recovered from
the respondent. The enquiry officer had found dereliction of duty
on the respondent. Findings in Annexure A5 enquiry report and
reply submitted by the respondent are not considered while
issuing Annexure A8 order dated 14.02.2020 imposing the penalty
of barring of 1 increment with cumulative effect by the 1st
petitioner. This Court in Kalidas v. State of Kerala [1988 (2)
KLT 613] held that in the absence of examining the witnesses
and opportunity for cross-examination, the imposition of a major
penalty is invalid. Annexure A9 review petition filed by the
respondent was also rejected by the 1st petitioner by Annexure
A10 order dated 12.10.2020. With these pleadings, the
respondent-applicant approached the Tribunal with O.A.No.1940
of 2020 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue appropriate order or direction to call for the records
relating to Annexure-A5, A8 and A10 and to set aside the
same in the light of violation of Rule 15 of KCS (CC&A)
Rules-1960.
ii. Issue appropriate order or direction to the 1st respondent
to drop the further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A8
and A10 and to conduct de novo enquiry in the light of
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
Annexure A2, A4, A7 and A9 and other relevant documents.
iii. Issue appropriate order or direction to the respondents
not to proceed as per the Annexure-A8 order".
3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1 st
petitioner, a reply statement dated 22.11.2021 was filed,
producing therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. To
that reply statement, the respondent-applicant filed a rejoinder
dated 21.06.2022.
4. After considering the materials on record and the rival
contentions of parties, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P4 order
dated 04.04.2023, allowed the original application. Paragraphs 8
to 11 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"8. In the Memo of Charge serious allegations were levelled
against the applicant who was working as a Motor Vehicle
Inspector. The main allegation was that he had arranged his
Agent Suresh Kumar in a house near the driving test ground
for collecting bribe from persons participating in the driving
test. Above Suresh Kumar used to hand over regularly the
above collection to the officials including the applicant. To
facilitate the above illegal activity the applications of the
persons concerned, the official seal and seal pad were
entrusted with Suresh Kumar and all those documents were
alleged to have been recovered from Suresh Kumar at the
time of vigilance inspection. It was after the report and
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
recommendation from the Vigilance that separate enquiry
was ordered. Perusal of Annexure A5 enquiry report shows
that none of the above serious charges were proved against
the applicant. In the enquiry report Annexure A5 there is a
specific reference that Suresh Kumar had taken a gold loan.
In the findings recorded by the enquiry officer there is a
specific finding to the effect that there was nothing to show
that the amount collected from Suresh Kumar was the
amount given by the persons who attended the driving test.
No statements were recorded from the persons who
attended the test and it is also revealed that results were
not published as to whether they had passed or failed.
Suresh Kumar had a specific case that he had taken a gold
loan from Parappanangadi Co-operative Bank for house
construction and the amount which was in his custody on
that date was that loan amount. VACB had not recorded the
statement of any person to the effect that they had given
bribe for driving test and more over the result is published
only after Part II driving test which was not over at the time
when the vigilance visited the site. There was absolutely no
evidence to show that money was collected either from the
driving school or from participants. Moreover, there was
nothing to show that any amount was collected on behalf of
the officers like the applicants. But at the same time in the
enquiry it was found that there were lapses from the part of
the applicant in not keeping the official documents in proper
safe custody. It is noted that the Motor Vehicle Inspectors
ought to have recorded the results and they should have
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
kept it in their custody or with the concerned section clerk.
To that extent there is a finding of dereliction of duty from
the part of the officers including the applicant. But in the
show cause notice Annexure A6 the reason stated for
imposing the punishment is the lack of certain findings in
the enquiry report regarding recovery of documents from
Suresh Kumar. When the very involvement of Suresh Kumar
is found against by the enquiry officer there is no reason to
state in Annexure A6 that no finding was entered by the
enquiry officer regarding recovery of seal from Suresh
Kumar. In the enquiry, the connection alleged against the
applicant in the Memo of Charges with Suresh Kumar was
not proved. Regarding the allegation of signing the
applications for batch 1 and 2 the applicant had given
explanation to the effect that the test were not over and
that the results were not published at the time of inspection
of the vigilance. So there is no question of keeping the result
signed and sealed at 11 a.m when the vigilance visited the
site. When the matter was examined by the Government in
review the Government has issued a very cryptic order
Annexure A10 referring only to the report of the vigilance
and not making any reference to the enquiry report or other
allegations. The report of VACB which contained serious
allegations against the applicant were not accepted by the
Enquiry Officer and that is not seen taken note of by the
Government in Annexure A10 order of the Government. The
reply statement does not answer contentions of the
applicant and the averments in the reply statement are also
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
based on the report submitted by the VACВ.
9. It is settled proposition of law that the disciplinary
authority can deviate from the findings of the enquiry
authority on valid reasons. If any new material or
information comes to the notice of the disciplinary authority
with regard to the conduct of the delinquent employee which
lead to the imposition of punishment it is well within the
power of the disciplinary authority to take a decision
deviating from the stand taken by the enquiry authority. But
in the present case the Government as the disciplinary
authority has deviated from the findings of the enquiry
officer only on the reason that findings are not seen made
by the enquiry officer on certain relevant aspects. That can
never be a reason for imposing a punishment ignoring the
findings in the enquiry report. In the review also the
Government has not taken any effort to address any of the
contentions raised by the applicant in the review petition.
10. At the same time, in the enquiry report the applicant's
contention regarding the open shed in the ground and lack
of required facilities for keeping documents are not seen
examined properly though the fact finding on those aspects
are very crucial.
11. In the above circumstances, Annexures A5, A6, A8 and
A10 are quashed as arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal,
making it clear that the Government is free to conduct
denovo enquiry on Annexure A1 and A1(a). Original
Application is allowed as above."
5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader attempted to
impugn Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal contending that the decision
of the disciplinary authority is based on the subjective satisfaction
of the said authority, even though the same is deviating from the
stand taken by the enquiry authority; according to the learned
Senior Government Pleader, the Tribunal ought not to have
interfered with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority.
7. Whereas the stand of the learned counsel for the
respondent-applicant is that the disciplinary authority had passed
the impugned order without following the statutory procedural
mandates. Hence, there is no illegality or incorrectness in the
impugned order of the Tribunal. In support of his arguments, the
learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC
84].
8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
10. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
11. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to
supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
14. In the present case, as extracted above, the Tribunal,
after a detailed appreciation of the materials on record, reached
to a conclusion that there can never be a reason for imposing a
punishment on the respondent, ignoring the findings in the
enquiry report. From Annexure A10 order dated 12.10.2020
issued by the 1st petitioner, we notice that the said order is a
cryptic order, passed without considering the contentions of the
respondent. The submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent is that no notice was issued to the respondent, and his
part was not heard, while the impugned decisions were taken by
the petitioners. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that in Kunj
Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84] the Apex Court held thus:
"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the
principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
7(2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority
disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge
then before it records its own findings on such charge, it
must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and
give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent
before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer
containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the
delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of
the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we
have already observed, require the authority, which has to
take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an
opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary authority records its
findings on the charges framed against the officer.
(Underline supplied)
15. Viewed in the light of the judgments referred to supra,
we find no ground to hold that the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal is perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference
by exercising supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
However, having considered the submissions made by the learned
Senior Government Pleader, it is made clear that if the petitioners
propose to conduct any such de novo enquiry as permitted in the
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
impugned order, the same shall be completed, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT)No.310 of 2025 2025:KER:82332
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 310/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES
NO.C3/113/2018/TRANS(2) DATED 30.04.2018 ISSUED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, K.R. JYOTHILAL.
Annexure A1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
NO.C3/113/2018/TRANS DATED 30.04.2018 ISSUED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, K.R. JYOTHILAL.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPLICANT
AGAINST THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF
ALLEGATIONS DATED 04.07.2018.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 13.02.2019
NO.C3/113/2018-TRANS ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE ENQUIY OFFICER ON 25.02.2019
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
ENQUIRY OFFICER.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
03.04.2019 NO.C3/113/2018-TRANS(3) ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 21.05.2019
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.72/2020/TRANS DATED
14.02.2020.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
APPLICANT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2020
NO.C3/113/2018-TRANS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLDGMENT OF THE APPLICANT
ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 27.06.2018
Annexure R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT DATED
15.09.2018
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.1940/2020
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
FIRST PETITIONER ON 22.11.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
ON 21.06.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON 04.04.2023
