Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Review : Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Pension Reduction Ordered Without Regular Disciplinary Enquiry

“In the absence of perversity or illegality, High Court cannot interfere with Tribunal’s findings under Article 227” –  In a judgment that reasserts the limited scope of High Court’s supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court , dismissed a challenge to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order which upheld the reduction of pension to minimum for a retired Deputy Director of Survey, despite no regular disciplinary enquiry being conducted under the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1960.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., while rejecting the original petition filed by the legal heir of the deceased officer B. Vijayan, affirmed that the State Government was justified in invoking Rule 59(b) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) to penalise the officer based on his adverse service record, especially when disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of retirement.

“This Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Tribunal,” the Bench observed, adding that “no interference is warranted unless the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable.”

“Government Need Not Conduct Full-Fledged Enquiry Under KCS (CCA) Rules If Action Is Taken Under Rule 59(b), KSR”

The case stemmed from disciplinary allegations against B. Vijayan, who retired from service on 31.03.2011. He was accused of irregularly disposing of a land complaint, allegedly transferring puramboke land to a private individual, thereby causing potential loss to the Government. Although no final disciplinary action was taken during his service, the Government later proceeded to reduce his pension to the minimum, invoking Rule 59(b) which permits such action in cases where disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of retirement.

The Tribunal had earlier concluded that such action did not require a full-fledged enquiry under the KCS (CCA) Rules.

“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,” noted the High Court, referring to the Tribunal’s earlier findings. [Para 18]

The Bench accepted that the Government had exercised its discretion based on adverse service history, noting that several other disciplinary proceedings—two pending and three already finalised—were also on record against the officer. These facts were placed before the Court via an affidavit from the Additional Secretary to the Government, filed on 25.10.2025.

“Correctional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Exercised Like a Bull in a China Shop”: High Court Cites Apex Court Limits on Article 227 Review

The High Court placed strong reliance on established precedent from the Supreme Court on the nature and limits of Article 227 powers. Referring to Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) and Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010), the Court reiterated:

“The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum… 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.” [Para 12]

Referring further to K.V.S. Ram v. BMTC (2015), the Court underscored:

“Only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal… or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice,” can Article 227 be invoked. [Para 13]

In this case, the High Court found no such perversity, illegality, or violation of natural justice in the Tribunal’s order that would justify invoking its supervisory powers.

“Tribunal Showed Equitable Discretion by Restraining Recovery Beyond Pension Reduction”

Interestingly, while the State had passed an order not only reducing the pension but also directing recovery of earlier paid benefits from the pension, the Tribunal had intervened to protect the petitioner from further recovery.

“The Tribunal, considering the fact 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.” [Para 18]

The High Court recognised that the Tribunal had exercised equitable discretion in favour of the petitioner by restricting punitive recovery, and saw no reason to interfere with such an order.

“Pensionary Punishment Justified in View of Officer’s Adverse Service Record”

While the petitioner contended that there was no actual loss of Government land and that he had acted in good faith while disposing of a complaint during his tenure, the Government relied on cumulative service records, which reflected a pattern of administrative lapses. The Bench held:

“The materials on record and the affidavit of the Government clearly indicate that the officer had an unsatisfactory service record, with multiple disciplinary cases—some pending and some finalised.” [Para 18]

As such, the Government’s invocation of Rule 59(b) to reduce the pension without resorting to a full disciplinary process was found to be neither arbitrary nor mala fide.

No Scope for Interference in Absence of Perversity or Jurisdictional Error

Dismissing the original petition, the Division Bench summed up the Court’s position by holding:

“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.” [Para 19]

The ruling stands as a firm reaffirmation of judicial discipline under Article 227, drawing a clear line between appellate review and supervisory correction, particularly in service matters where pension penalties are imposed based on pending or past misconduct.

Date of Decision: 06 January 2026