JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. Petitioner has instituted the instant O.P. challenging Ext.P1 final verdict rendered on 28.04.2021 by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in O.A.(TVM) No.1724 of 2017, with the following prayers : (i) Issue an order to set aside Annexure-A7, A9 and 11; (ii) Direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant as duty for all practical purposes including salary; (iii) to issue such other orders, directions as may be prayed for and this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case; (iv) Award the cost of the proceedings 2. Petitioner is the applicant in the abovesaid O.A filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging Annexures-A7, A9, and A11 orders and seeking for a consequential direction to the respondents therein to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes. As per the averments in the original application, the petitioner while working under the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension as per Annexure-A1 order dated 05.09.2014, pending enquiry into the allegation that the petitioner on 25.08.2014 misbehaved towards the wife of one of his colleagues over the phone and that he went to the quarters at night when the colleague was not in the station and he ran away from the place when the neighbours saw him and the said act of the petitioner lowered the standard and morale of the Police Academy. A preliminary enquiry was conducted before the issuance of the Annexure-A1 order of suspension and a report was submitted on 04.09.2014. It is alleged that the said preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Thereafter Annexure-A2 memo of charges and a statement of allegation were issued on 21.02.2015. Subsequently Sri.K.K.Aji, DySP (Indoor), Kerala Police Academy was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. Annexure-A3 reply statement dated 24.08.2015 was filed by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. After enquiry, Annexure-A4 report (PR Minutes) dated 13.10.2015 was submitted to the 3rd respondent. It is contended that Exts.P1 to P5 statements were recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry without notice to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the complainant, who is a lady was not examined in the enquiry and therefore, the allegation of misbehavior cannot be said to be proved. 3. It is contended that Exts.P1 to P5 statements were recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry without notice to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the complainant, who is a lady was not examined in the enquiry and therefore, the allegation of misbehavior cannot be said to be proved. 3. The Disciplinary authority, after accepting Annexure-A4 enquiry report, tentatively decided to impose a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, and accordingly Annexure-A5 show cause notice dated 21.10.2015 was issued. On 21.10.2015 itself the petitioner was reinstated in service by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submitted Annexure-A6 detailed written statement dated 27.10.2015 in reply to Annexure-A5 show-cause notice. The 3rd respondent, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in Annexure-A6 reply, finalised the disciplinary proceedings as per Annexure-A7 dated 12.11.2015, imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative and regularized the period of suspension as duty for the limited purpose of pension and gratuity. Aggrieved by Annexure-A7 order, the petitioner had preferred Annexure-A8 appeal dated 10.12.2015 before the 2nd respondent. Without considering any of the contentions raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same was dismissed as per Annexure-A9 order dated 29.02.2016. Aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexures A7 and A9, the petitioner preferred Annexure-A10 review dated 21.06.2016 before the 1st respondent. The Government rejected the said review as per Annexure-A11 order dated 29.05.2017. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioner had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench by preferring O.A.(TVM) No.1724 of 2017. 4. A detailed reply statement was filed on behalf of the 1st respondent mainly contending that the allegation against the petitioner stands proved in the enquiry and after proper consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner that the Government had rejected the appeal as well as the review submitted by him. In the enquiry, 6 witnesses were examined, and only after a proper and fair enquiry that the enquiry officer has found that the allegation against the petitioner is proved. It is contended that ample opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in the enquiry and also at the stage of appeal as well as review. Non-examination of the complainant lady will be of no consequence in as much as the allegation against the petitioner is proved beyond doubt in the enquiry. It is contended that ample opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in the enquiry and also at the stage of appeal as well as review. Non-examination of the complainant lady will be of no consequence in as much as the allegation against the petitioner is proved beyond doubt in the enquiry. Annexures A7, A9, and A11 orders are issued in accordance with law and the averment to the contrary is false and incorrect. The charges against the petitioner are proved beyond doubt and the punishment awarded is only proportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner and therefore the respondents sought for dismissal of the O.A. 5. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the parties found that the enquiry was conducted in a proper and fair manner and the Government has considered the appeal as well as the review petition submitted by the petitioner giving due regard to the contentions raised therein by the petitioner. The Tribunal also held that it is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence adduced in the case as all the prescribed procedures are followed in accordance with the law by the authorities concerned. Holding so, the O.A was dismissed by the Tribunal. It is aggrieved by the said order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 28.04.2021 in O.A. No. 1724 of 2017 that the present O.P.(KAT) is filed. 6. The petitioner contended that the authorities have not considered the contentions raised by him in a proper manner while issuing Annexure-A11 and that the non-examination of the lady will go against the allegations raised in the memo of charges and the same cannot be said to be proved. The petitioner further contended that he went to the quarters of PW4 only to hand over the key of the car and it is only for that purpose that the petitioner went to meet the wife of PW4. He further has a contention that even though he was punished, he was allowed to work in the same place and it goes against the settled practice that once the delinquent is punished, he will not be allowed to work in the same place and further contended that he is not involved in any case either civil or criminal. 7. We have gone through Annexure-A2 memo of charges and statement of the allegation. 7. We have gone through Annexure-A2 memo of charges and statement of the allegation. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious, affecting the standards and morale of the Police Academy, which is a training centre for Police Personnel including woman recruitees. A perusal of Ext.A7 reveals that the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment after meticulously considering the enquiry report and after issuing Annexure A5 show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report. Enquiry has been done in accordance with law and several witnesses were examined to prove the guilt of the delinquent. The petitioner was also given ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the punishment imposed as per Ext.A7 is after complying with all the procedures contemplated as per law. Annexure-A9 order in appeal, as well as Annexure-A11 order passed in the review petition, were all issued after considering the detailed objection submitted by the petitioner. 8. The Tribunal has also found that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to examine the documents relied upon and to cross-examine the witnesses. Show cause notice was issued and along with the same, a copy of the PR Minutes was also served on the petitioner. The Tribunal also examined whether the prescribed procedures have been followed while issuing the penalty on the petitioner and found that all the procedures have been followed in this case, and therefore, did not interfere with the order imposing a penalty on the petitioner. 9. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Parma Nanda [ (1989) 2 SCC 177 ], while considering the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in interfering the disciplinary matters or punishment have held as follows: “27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.” The Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ] while examining the scope of judicial review in a challenge against the imposition of penalty by a disciplinary authority, entered a finding as follows: “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.” The Apex Court in Govt. of Andra Pradesh and Others v. Mohammed Nasrullah Khan [ (2006)2 SCC 373 ] while examining the power of High Court in exercising judicial review held that: “By now it is a well-established principle of law that the High Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an appellate authority.” In Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others [ (2020) 9 SCC 471 ] the Apex Court reiterated the scope of judicial review in service matters and held as follows : “25. The learned counsel for the appellant spent considerable time taking us through the various evidence on record with the intention of highlighting lacunae and contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome. ….................................... …..................................... 28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.” In one of the recent decisions, in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [ (2021) 2 SCC 612 ], the Apex Court after considering the earlier decisions on the subject decided as under: “25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact of conclusion. …..................................... …....................................... 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 10. It is settled law that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. While exercising the power of judicial review by constitutional courts, the powers of interference are very limited like correcting of errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the said exercise of power is not like a procedure for adjudication of the case on merits as an Appellate Authority. The Constitutional Court while exercising judicial review cannot interfere with the finding of facts arrived at the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity. In the present case, even the petitioner does not have a specific case as to whether any of the procedures have been violated. Petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to present the case before the enquiry officer and the punishment was imposed only after giving show-cause notice to him along with a copy of the PR minutes. At every stage of the enquiry and in the appellate as well as review stage, the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to defend his case. Exhibit A7, A9, and A11 orders are speaking and well-reasoned orders wherein all contentions raised by the petitioner have been duly considered. The petitioner has been provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Department and the principles of natural justice have been followed in full. Even the punishment awarded to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not unconscionable so as to warrant interference by this Court. All the contentions raised by the petitioner are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence which is impermissible while exercising powers of judicial review. The petitioner is a member of a disciplined force and is expected to maintain good conduct and discipline and by his present conduct, has lowered the reputation of the police force amongst members of the public. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. (TVM) No.1724 of 2017, and therefore, OP(KAT) No.323 of 2021 is dismissed.