Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicant in O.A. No.1371 of 2018 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 Ext.P6 order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. During the pendency of this original petition, the original petitioner died and hence his wife, being the legal representative, is impleaded as additional 2nd petitioner.

2. Going by the original application, the 1st petitioner retired as Deputy Director of Survey, Pathanamthitta, on 31.03.2011. While working as Deputy Director of Survey, Kollam, in pursuance to the instructions from the Director of Survey, the 1st petitioner disposed of a complaint made by one Shri Udayakumar, alleging irregularities in the Resurvey conducted on the land purchased and held by him in Adichanallur Village in Kollam District. He had followed all procedures before arriving at the decision and corrected the Resurvey records, under intimation to the Director of Survey. Subsequently, it was alleged that the 1st petitioner made over puramboke land to a private party and thereby caused loss to the Government. Disciplinary action was initiated against the 1st petitioner while in service and finalised long after his retirement, and his pension was reduced to the minimum. Challenging that decision, the 1st petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2654 of 2013. The O.A. was disposed of, directing the 1st petitioner to prefer a Review petition within a period of one month to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent to dispose of the same within a period of three months, by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.02.2017. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner preferred the review petition on 01.03.2017, and the Department of Revenue, Survey and Land Records, vide GO (ord) 1710/2018/Revenue dated 16.05.2018, rejected the Review Petition. The facts of the case show that there was no loss of land to the Government, and the order of the Revenue is arbitrary, ultra vires and lacking any bona fides. Aggrieved by this order, the 1st petitioner filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking an order to set aside the order of the 1st respondent, reducing the pension of 1st petitioner to the minimum and the subsequent order in the review petition and to direct the 1st respondent to grant all retirement benefits to the 1st petitioner from the date of his superannuation with interest and cost.

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement dated 10.12.2018 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought. To that reply statement, the 1st petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 04.02.2019, producing therewith Annexures A29 to A31 documents. Thereafter, on behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 12.07.2019 was filed. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 14.08.2019, dismissed the original application.

4. Being aggrieved, the 1st petitioner filed the present original petition.

5. On 07.01.2021, when this original petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to produce a copy of the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent in Annexure A11 O.A.No.2654 of 2013, within two weeks.

6. On 03.02.2021, when the original petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had made an application before the Tribunal for the grant of a certified copy of the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent in Annexure A11 O.A. No.2654 of 2013, the same had not been secured. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry of the Tribunal to forward an attested legible copy of the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent in O.A.No.2654 of 2013. The learned Senior Government Pleader was also requested to ascertain whether a copy of the said reply statement could be made available for perusal of this Court.

7. As directed, the Registrar of the Tribunal, along with a letter dated 05.02.2021, forwarded a copy of the reply statement dated 19.01.2017 filed on behalf of the 1st respondent in O.A.No. 2654 of 2013. Similarly, along with a memo dated 16.02.2021, the learned Senior Government Pleader also produced a copy of the said reply statement.

8. On 18.07.2025, when this original petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions based on Annexures A9 and A14 as to whether any steps have been taken by the Government regarding the land loss. If so, the details of such proceedings were also directed to be placed on record. In pursuance of that direction, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department, filed an affidavit dated 25.10.2025 in the original petition.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 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.

15. 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.

16. We have carefully perused the materials on record, the impugned order of the Tribunal and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar.

17. The 1st petitioner was retired from service on 31.03.2011 as Deputy Director of Survey. At that time a disciplinary proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960, were pending against him. For that reason, his retirement benefits were not sanctioned. Though this Court in W.P.(C)No.11101 of 2011 directed the disciplinary proceedings to be completed within three months and thereafter by Annexure A3 order, extended the said time, no further disciplinary proceedings were taken by the Government. By Annexure A4 order dated 16.12.2011, the pensionary benefits were directed to be released to the 1st petitioner by the Government. Later, the Government issued Annexure A7 notice dated 23.03.2012 calling upon the 1st petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his monthly pension should not be reduced to the minimum as per Rule 3 of Part III Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ in short). Subsequently, the said proposal was confirmed by Annexure A9 order dated 31.08.2013 by reducing the monthly pension of the 1st petitioner to the minimum. By Annexure A10 order dated 08.02.2016 of the Principal Secretary, Board of Revenue (E) Department, it was directed to recover the excess amount paid to the 1st petitioner as per Annexure A4 order and to recover 40% of the minimum pension towards recovery of that amount. Though the 1st petitioner challenged Annexure A9 order before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2654 of 2013, by Annexure A11 order dated 07.02.2017, the Tribunal disposed of that original application, permitting the 1st petitioner to prefer a review petition before the Government in accordance with Note 1 to Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR. However, the review petition filed by the 1st petitioner was dismissed by the Government by Annexure A14 order dated 16.05.2018.

18. As found by the Tribunal, it has already been concluded in Annexure A11 order dated 07.02.2017 in O.A.No.2654 of 2013, that the order passed against the 1st petitioner is under Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR; and it is not necessary to conduct a detailed enquiry following the procedure in KCS (CCA) Rules. Noting that other cases were pending against the 1st petitioner and his service was not satisfactory, Annexure A14 order was passed by the Government. In the affidavit dated 25.10.2025 filed in this original petition by the Additional Secretary to the Government, it is stated that there were two other disciplinary action files pending against the 1st petitioner and apart from those two pending disciplinary proceedings, three other disciplinary actions were finalised against him. The Tribunal, considering the fact that Annexure A9 order was issued only on 31.08.2013 and that the monthly pension of the 1st petitioner is reduced to the minimum, directed no further recovery of the amount paid to the 1st petitioner towards the pensionary benefits.

19.    Having considered the materials placed on records and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments referred to above, we find no sufficient ground to hold the finding of the Tribunal as perverse or illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.