S. Muralee Krishna , J.

1. The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.229 of 2022 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 order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner filed O.A.(EKM)No.229 of 2022 before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging Annexure A17 order dated 18.12.2021 issued by the Home Department of the State of Kerala against the petitioner, ordering withholding of the increment with cumulative effect for one year, in pursuance of a disciplinary action against the petitioner.

3. The said disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for the reason that he permitted the shooting of a movie named ‘Naval Enna Jewel’ in the high security prison, Viyur, compromising the security of the prison and against the guidelines in Annexure A2 order dated 02.03.2016 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government. During the enquiry proceedings, though the petitioner attempted to justify his part, the enquiry ended against him, finding serious dereliction of duty on his part, including an act affecting the security of the high security prison and thereafter, following the procedure prescribed, the punishment of barring one increment was imposed on the petitioner by Annexure A17 order.

4. In the original application on behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 16.09.2022 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P2 order, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 8 to 9 and the subsequent paragraphs of that order read thus:

                  “8. As per in clause 'j' of Annexure A2 (a), it is clearly stated that no permission is granted for shooting inside the Jail. Despite this, the film crew was permitted to conduct shooting inside the High Security Prison, which was then under construction. The said prison was being constructed to accommodate prisoners posing risk to national security. Therefore, allowing a film crew to shoot in that area would naturally expose the structural layout and features of the High Security Prison. The applicant contends that he initially attempted to prevent the shooting inside the jail premises, but when the Director insisted, citing precedents of other films shot at the same location, he granted permission. It was also stated that the DIG was consulted before granting such permission. However, there is no material on record to substantiate any such consultation. Even assuming that such consultations was made, the conditions imposed by the Government could not have been violated, particularly in view of the definite possibility of compromising the security of the prison, which was being constructed to accommodate prisoners posing risk to national security.

                  9. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the respondents that the action of the applicant resulted in compromising the security of the prison. We are also of the view that the punishment imposed, though belated, is proportionate to the act of delinquency. Moreover it is settled law that the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is very limited. This Tribunal can interfere only in cases where there is any procedural irregularity or when it is a case of no evidence or the authority which awarded punishment is not competent for the same or when the punishment awarded is shocking to the conscience of the Tribunal. Applicant has not raised any such grounds (see Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423, State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423, etc).

                  No relief can, therefore, be granted to the applicant.

                  In the above circumstances, the Original Application is dismissed as devoid of merit.”

5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original application, the petitioner is now before this Court with this original petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prison concerned was declared as a high security prison only in the year 2019, whereas the permission for film shooting was granted in the year 2016. The petitioner had obtained oral permission from the Director General of Prisons for conducting the shooting inside the prison, and he was made a scapegoat in the issue when the matter was reported in the media. The petitioner is about to retire from service on 31.05.2026, and he lost the promotion opportunities due to this disciplinary action and his juniors were already promoted, overlooking his seniority.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the permission granted by Annexures A2 and A2(a) documents was for movie shooting outside the high security prison. But the petitioner permitted the same inside the prison, and moreover, he was not available for six days when the movie shooting was going on, when Annexures A2 and A2(a) orders specifically direct that the shooting should be under the strict supervision of the superintendent of the jail. After proper disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duty, and hence, the punishment was imposed on him.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. From Annexures A2 and A2(a) orders issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government on 02.03.2016 and 19.05.2016 respectively, it is clear that the permission to conduct the shooting of the movie ‘Naval Enna Jewel’ was granted at the exterior of the high security prison, Viyur. It was also directed in those orders that the shooting should be under the strict supervision of the superintendent of the jail. But the materials placed on record would show that the petitioner permitted the shooting inside the high-security prison, which was then under construction. It is true that the prison might have been declared as a high security prison in a later stage; however, the permission to conduct a movie shooting inside the building under construction intended for a high security prison, violating the orders of the Government, cannot be taken lightly. It is also borne out from records that the petitioner was absent on some of the days of the shooting, though the Government Order specifically directs that the shooting shall be conducted under his strict supervision. Considering all these factors, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and he was found guilty of dereliction of duty. After following the procedural formalities, the punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. It is considering all these facts, the Tribunal passed the impugned order dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.

16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

                  In the result, this original petition stands dismissed.