[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saji Varughese vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT) No.13 of 2026
2026:KER:3117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 13 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2026 IN OA NO.2188 OF 2025 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
SAJI VARUGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VARUGHESE. CURRENTLY
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523,
RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEETIL, ULANADU P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 689503
BY ADVS.
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
SMT.DIVYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA., PIN - 695014
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 689121
SRI. A. J. VARGHESE, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT) No.13 of 2026
2026:KER:3117
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.2188 of 2025 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the
'Tribunal' in short), has filed this original petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 order dated 09.01.2026
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioner is presently working as Principal, Government Higher
Secondary School, Adoor, having assumed charge on 22.06.2020.
He entered Government service as Higher Secondary School
Teacher (Political Science) on 18.01.2005 through Kerala Public
Service Commission selection and has rendered nearly two
decades of continuous, unblemished service in various
Government Higher Secondary Schools across the State.
Throughout his service career, no adverse remark, disciplinary
action or vigilance proceeding has ever been sustained against
him. In recognition of his professional competence and integrity,
he was promoted as Principal in the year 2020, his first posting
2026:KER:3117
being at the present institution. Now the petitioner is aggrieved
by Annexure A1 transfer order G.O (Rt) No.10570/2025/GEDN
dated 27.12.2025.
2.1. Immediately upon assuming charge as Principal, the
petitioner noticed that a faction of senior teachers, acting in
concert with certain РТA functionaries, were operating in a manner
detrimental to academic discipline, financial propriety and
institutional governance. In discharge of his statutory duties as
Head of Institution, the petitioner introduced corrective and
transparency-oriented measures, including installation of CCTV
cameras pursuant to PTA resolution, regulation of uniform
procurement and distribution, proper conduct of SRG meetings,
systematic academic monitoring and periodic class assessments.
These measures curtailed the unchecked autonomy previously
enjoyed by certain teachers and triggered strong resentment,
culminating in a sustained and vindictive campaign against the
petitioner. The first such complaint dated 30.08.2021 filed before
the Chief Minister by the PTA Vice President. The then Regional
Deputy Director, after conducting a detailed and independent
enquiry, by Annexure A5(a) report categorically held that all
2026:KER:3117
allegations were false, fabricated and devoid of merit. Undeterred,
the same group continued to file repetitive complaints. One such
complaint was taken up by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau,
which discovered that even the address of the complainant was
fabricated. After full investigation, the Bureau found no irregularity
whatsoever on the part of the petitioner and recommended
closure of proceedings by Annexure A6 report dated 20.07.2024.
The very same allegations were again examined departmentally
by the then Regional Deputy Director, culminating in Annexure A7
report dated 21.11.2024, reaffirming that the complaints were
unfounded and motivated. When all departmental and vigilance
routes failed, certain senior teachers escalated matters by
misusing the identity of students to file a complaint before the
Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The
Commission, after an exhaustive quasi-judicial enquiry, passed
Annexure A8 order dated 28.01.2025 holding that the complaints
were fabricated, filed with ulterior motives, and that senior
teachers were the real architects of the false propaganda. The
Commission dropped all proceedings against the petitioner and
even recommended transfer of teachers who had stagnated in the
2026:KER:3117
institution for more than ten years.
2.2. The petitioner further states that despite such repeated
and authoritative exonerations under Annexures A5(a), A6, A7
and A8, the same vested group again filed Annexure A3 complaint
dated 25.06.2025 before the Chief Minister, one of the signatories
being the very same individual whose earlier complaint had
already been conclusively rejected. Acting on this complaint, the
present Regional Deputy Director, Chengannoor, conducted a so-
called preliminary enquiry on 28.07.2025 and submitted Annexure
A2 report dated 11.08.2025 recommending action including
transfer against the petitioner. That the present Regional Deputy
Director had earlier served in the same school and maintained
close association with the complainant faction, giving rise to a
reasonable apprehension of bias. The enquiry was conducted in a
perfunctory and arbitrary manner, in complete disregard of binding
exculpatory materials, including the petitioner's detailed
explanation and Annexures A5(a), A7 and A8 reports. Annexure
A2 merely resurrects stale allegations already disproved multiple
times, without any fresh material. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner submitted Annexure A11 representation dated
2026:KER:3117
03.11.2025 before the 2nd respondent and Annexure A12 appeal
dated 29.11.2025 before the 1st respondent, seeking a fair,
impartial and lawful evaluation. No action was taken. The
petitioner was therefore constrained to approach the Tribunal
earlier through O.A. No.2104 of 2025, seeking to set aside
Annexure A2. The Tribunal, by the order dated 05.12.2025,
declined interference on the ground that Annexure A2 was only a
preliminary enquiry report and that the reliefs sought were
premature. Taking advantage of the said order, the respondents
thereafter proceeded to implement a punitive transfer against the
petitioner based solely on Annexure A2, thereby converting a
defective preliminary report into an order having clear civil
consequences. The transfer is punitive in effect, founded on a
vitiated enquiry, and issued in disregard of repeated statutory and
departmental exonerations. The present original application is
thus not barred by the earlier proceedings. On the contrary, it
arises from a subsequent cause of action, namely the issuance
and implementation of the transfer order based on Annexure A2,
causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. Having no other
efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner is constrained to
2026:KER:3117
invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal seeking intervention to
prevent manifest injustice, abuse of process and administrative
arbitrariness. With these pleadings, the petitioner filed the
original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"1. To issue an order quashing and setting aside Annexure
A1 Transfer Order as illegal, arbitrary, colourable in exercise
of power, mala fide, vitiated by suppression of material
records and total non-application of mind, and as having
been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice, and consequently declare that all consequential
actions founded on Annexure A2 are void and
unenforceable.
2. To declare that Annexure A2 Preliminary Enquiry Report
is illegal, void ab initio and non est in law, having been
prepared by a biased authority, in breach of the doctrine of
audi alteram partem and by deliberate non-consideration of
binding exculpatory materials including Annexures A4(a),
A5(a), A6, A7 and A8, rendering it incapable of forming the
foundation for any adverse or punitive action against the
Applicant.
3. To issue appropriate order restraining the Respondents
from relying upon, enforcing or giving effect to Annexure
A2, and from initiating or continuing any adverse, punitive
or coercive proceedings, including transfer or disciplinary
action, against the Applicant on the strength of the said
2026:KER:3117
vitiated report.
4. To direct the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of
Annexure A12 statutory representation/appeal submitted
by the Applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order
strictly in accordance with law, after affording the Applicant
a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
3. On 09.01.2026, when the original application came up
for consideration, after hearing both sides, the Tribunal passed
the impugned order. Paragraphs 4, 5 and the last paragraph of
that order read thus:
"4. The present grievance of the applicant is against
Annexure A1 order of transfer, which is based on Annexure
A2 report. Earlier, when the applicant approached this
Tribunal seeking setting aside of Annexure A2, the same
was dismissed as premature. However, when Annexure A1
order is issued, the applicant has not approached the
respondents against the same.
5. Considering the facts of the case presently before us,
this Tribunal is of the view that the right course of action is
for the applicant to approach the 1st respondent through a
proper representation, citing his grievances. If such a
representation is received within 2 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, the 1st respondent shall
consider the same and pass early orders, after affording an
opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant and within
2026:KER:3117
one month from the date of receipt of the representation.
The Original Application is disposed as above."
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. When the learned counsel for the petitioner impugned
Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has not
passed any direction protecting the interest of the petitioner as
to his continuance in service as the Principal of the present school,
the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that there is
no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
6. 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
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
7. 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
2026:KER:3117
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.
8. 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
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
2026:KER:3117
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
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
2026:KER:3117
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.
11. 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
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.
2026:KER:3117
12. By the impugned Ext.P2 order, the Tribunal directed the
petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a proper
representation citing his grievance. If such a representation is
received within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the same
after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
within one month from the receipt of the representation.
13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments
referred to above, we find no ground to hold that the aforesaid
order passed by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal which warrants
interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner will submit the
representation before the 1st respondent as directed in the
impugned order within a day .
In such circumstances this original petition is disposed of
confirming the impugned Ext.P2 order passed by the tribunal,
however making it clear that the petitioner shall submit the
representation as directed by the Tribunal before the 1 st
2026:KER:3117
respondent citing his grievances within a period of one week from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the 1 st
respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders,
after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
It is also made clear that the transfer of the petitioner if any
effected will be subject to the decision that would be taken by
the 1st respondent in the representation as directed above.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:3117
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 13 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.10570/2025/GEDN
DATED 27.12 2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RTI ACT
NO.RDD/HSE/CNGR/2759/2025-C7 DATED
15.10.2025 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT
ALONG WITH PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.RDD/HSE/CNGR/1921/2025- C7 DATED
11.08.2025
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY P.T.A
AND S.M.C COMMITTEE MEMBERS, GOVERNMENT BOYS
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ADOOR TO THE HON'BLE
CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 25.06.2025
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY QUESTIONNAIRE OF
ADOOR GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
DATED 02.08.2025
Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE
APPLICANT DATED 02.08.2025
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY SUNIL
BABU, PTA VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT BOYS HSS
ADOOR TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA
DATED 30.08.2021
Annexure A5(a) TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF REGIONAL DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT
CHENGANNOOR
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RTI ACT NO.G-
4/2025/PTA DATED 21.01.2025 OF THE DEPUTY
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
POLICE SUPERINTENDENT TO THE APPLICANT ALONG
WITH PETITION REPORT OF THE POLICE INSPECTOR
DATED 20.09.2024 AND COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI.R TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 20/07/2024
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO. RDD/HSE/
CNGR/2907/ 2024- C5 DATED 21.11.2024
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER OF THE
REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR
PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, 2ND RESPONDENT AND DDE,
PATHANAMTHITTA NO.01467/03/2024/ KESCPCR
DATED 29.01.2025 ALONG WITH ORDER IN CRMP
2026:KER:3117
NO.01467/03/2024/KESSCPCR DATED 28.01.2025
OF THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION
OF CHILD RIGHTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TO SHRI. BENCYMON.M NO.
RDD/HSE/CNGR/486/2025-C5 DATED 29.07.2025
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE HIGHER SECONDARY WING TEACHERS OF
GOVERNMENT BOYS HSS ADOOR TO THE HONOURABLE
MINISTER FOR GENERAL EDUCATION DATED
01.11.2024
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
03.11.2025
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
29.11.2025
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 2104 OF
2025 DATED 05.12.2025
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA 2179 OF 2025
DATED 24.12.2025
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.2188/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2026 IN
O.A.2188/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
