JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayer in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows; (See page 9 of the paper book of this OP). “(i) … … … to set aside Exhibit P5 order in OA(Ekm)No.1510/2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Ernakulam by allowing this Original Petition.” 2. Heard Sri B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala and 2 others) in the OP/respondents OA before the Tribunal and Sri C.S.Manu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent in the OP/sole applicant in the OA before the Tribunal. The prayers in Ext.P1 Original Application, OA(Ekm)No.1510/2016 filed by the respondent herein/applicant in the OA are as follows; (See pages 24 and 25 of this paper book). “(i) Call for the records leading to Annexs.A-3, A-5 and A-7 and quash Annexs.A-3, A-5 and A-7 orders, (ii) Allow cost of this application to the applicant. (iii) Grant such other further reliefs that this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The Tribunal has rendered the impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 06.01.2020 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1510/2016 holding that from the materials in the above disciplinary proceedings, it can be seen that the disciplinary authority has not even led the minimal acceptable evidence to hold the applicant guilty of the allegations in the memo of charges and that therefore the impugned orders at Annexure A3 penalty order as confirmed in Annexure A5 appellate order and Annexure A7 revisional order holding the applicant guilty and imposing on him major punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is illegal and ultra vires and has thus quashed the impugned proceedings at Annexure A3, A7 and A8 and has allowed the main pleas in the above OA. It is this final order at Ext.P5 that is under challenge in this OP. 4. The respondent herein is a Police Personnel, holding the post of Civil Police Officer (CPO) (Ex-Police Constable) in the Police Department. He was served with Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 18.08.2007 and at that time (12.01.2007), he was working on deputation basis in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) under the Vigilance Department of the State Government. 4. The respondent herein is a Police Personnel, holding the post of Civil Police Officer (CPO) (Ex-Police Constable) in the Police Department. He was served with Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 18.08.2007 and at that time (12.01.2007), he was working on deputation basis in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) under the Vigilance Department of the State Government. The sum and substance of the allegations raised against him at Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 18.08.2017 is that on the crucial day in question viz; 12.01.2007, the applicant along with one Justin Jayaraj, had wrongfully restrained one Madanan and had tried to cause physical harm to him which led to the registration of a crime as Crime No.15/2007 of Thiruvananthapuram Vattappara Police Station in which the said persons have been arrayed as accused 1 and 2 therein for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of IPC. The main allegation was that the accused persons have caused physical assault on the victim concerned (Madanan). It is common ground that the above said criminal proceedings was compounded in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. which resulted in Annexure A14 order dated 28.09.2007, whereby the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned has thus accepted the plea for compounding based on the consent of both sides and has thus ordered the acquittal of the accused person in view of the provisions contained in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The case of the respondents in the OA is that they had complied with the requirements of initiation and finalisation of major penalty proceedings in accordance with the provisions contained in Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules governing the field and that mere technical acquittal of the applicant in the said crime as per Annexure A14 on the basis of compounding, will not take away the blame of the applicant and that they have led acceptable evidence to hold the applicant as guilty of the allegations raised in the memo of charges. Annexure A13 is the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer. Annexure A3 is the penalty order dated 12.11.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Police, disciplinary authority, holding the applicant guilty of the allegations raised in the memo of charges and ordering that he should suffer penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. Annexure A13 is the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer. Annexure A3 is the penalty order dated 12.11.2008 issued by the Commissioner of Police, disciplinary authority, holding the applicant guilty of the allegations raised in the memo of charges and ordering that he should suffer penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. The said penalty order at Annexure A3 has been confirmed both on the question of guilt as well as penalty by Annexure A5 appellate order dated 06.05.2010 issued by the Inspector General of Police and later by Annexure A7 order dated 04.11.2013 issued in the revisional proceedings by the competent authority of the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the statutory rules. Before the Tribunal, the applicant has contended that Annexure A11 series of depositions tendered before the Enquiry Commissioner, which culminated in Annexure A13 enquiry report would show that none of the witnesses had deposed against the applicant and that charges have not been supported by any one of them. Annexure A11(1) is stated to be the deposition of Madanan (the defacto complainant in criminal proceedings which culminated in Annexure A14) and who has plainly deposed that he does not know who was responsible for the alleged incident. Yet another prosecution witness, viz, PW2, has stated before the Enquiry Officer that he is not even an eye witness in respect of the alleged incident and that he is a shop owner whose shop is situated at a distance of 150 meters away from the place and what was spoken to by him is that while standing outside the shop at 9.00 p.m. on 12.01.2007, he heard an yelling by somebody, but he did not proceed to the scene. In the deposition given by Madanan (defacto complainant) the prime witness in this case, whose deposition at Annexure A11 (1) would show that he has not only stated that the persons who have perpetrated the physical assault on him is not the applicant and the other co-accused and somebody else who could not be identified by him. According to the original applicant, even evidence given by prosecution witnesses like PW1, PW3 & PW4 have spoken totally against the version of the allegations raised in the memo of charges. According to the original applicant, even evidence given by prosecution witnesses like PW1, PW3 & PW4 have spoken totally against the version of the allegations raised in the memo of charges. The Tribunal after going through the depositions of all the prosecution witnesses given to the Enquiry Officer culminated in Ext.A13 enquiry report has found that none of those witnesses who had adduced evidence before the Enquiry Officer has given even minimal acceptable evidence so as to hold the applicant guilty of the allegations raised in the memo of charges and that the contrary findings in the impugned orders at Annexures A3, A5 and A7 are liable for interdiction by way of judicial proceedings on the simple ground that the finding of guilt and imposition of penalty in the said impugned orders is on the basis of “no acceptable evidence” and therefore is vitiated by perversity and unreasonableness. It is on these simple grounds that the Tribunal has taken the view that the impugned orders are liable for interdiction in judicial review proceedings and has accordingly quashed the impugned proceedings at Annexures A3, A5 and A7. 5. Sri B.Vinod, the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the Tribunal has lost sight of one crucial aspect of the matter that the first information statement given by the defacto complainant which resulted in the registration of the crime, has been marked as Ext.P4 before the Enquiry Officer and is referred to in Annexure A13 enquiry report. Further that the final report-cum-charge sheet in the said crime has been marked as Ext.P1 in Annexure A13 enquiry proceedings. That the version of the first informant (defacto complaint) in Ext.P4 as well as the version of the other witnesses like Anil Kumar, Yasodharan, etc. who had all given statements to the Police immediately after the incident and their statements have also been recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would clearly show that not only the defacto complainant (first informant), but also the other witnesses who had opportunity to be in the scene of occurrence on that day, like Anil Kumar, Yasodharan, have fairly and precisely stated before the Police that the victim (first informant) was assaulted by the original applicant herein (Sri Sam Lesly) as well as the co-accused in the crime . Further that the above said materials disclosed on the basis of the first information statement in the crime marked as Ext.P4 and Annexure A13 enquiry proceedings and the final report/charge sheet in the above said crime marked as Ext.P1 in Annexure A13 enquiry report would clearly show that the findings made by the Tribunal that there was no minimal acceptable evidence on record is factually wrong and incorrect and that the materials at Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet would constitute not only minimal acceptable evidence but also sufficient evidence to hold the applicant guilty of the allegations that he had assaulted the victim (first informant). It is also urged that from the records in the impugned proceedings, it appears that the witness Yasodharan had given statement immediately after the incident to the Police is a close relative, presumably by marriage, to accused No.2 viz, Justin Jayaraj and that the said Yasodharan is also stated to be related to the victim Madanan. The learned Senior Government Pleader has produced copy of the FIS and the final report/charge sheet (Ext.P4 and Ext.P1 in Annexure A13) along with memo of the learned Senior Government Pleader in this original petition and has taken our attention to the contents of the said FIS and final report/charge sheet, more particularly, the statement given by not only the first informant (victim/defacto complainant) but also the initial statement given by Yasodharan and Anil Kumar and would point out that the narration of facts therein given by the victim as well as the two cardinal witnesses would show that there is flow of truth and naturality in the statements and that the version of the first informant that he was assaulted by the two accused persons in the crime, including the original applicant has been corroborated by the other witnesses viz, Anil Kumar and Yasodharan and further that even the motive of the assault has also been explained by the victim Madanan by stating that there was previous allegations that Madanan teased the cousin sister of the original applicant Sam Lesly and that it is out of this animosity that he along with the co-accused, Justin Jayaraj had physically assaulted the victim by pulling out him from the motor cycle, etc. A reading of these materials at Exts.P1 and P4 marked in the enquiry proceedings would clearly show that there is substantial truth in the versions given by them before the Police in the above said crime. Further that Annexure A14 is only a technical acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. and not an acquittal of the trial, inasmuch as the accused persons had compromised the matter with the defacto complainant Madanan, which led to the acceptance of the compounding plea by the learned Magistrate in view of the nature of the offences and the acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. as per Annexure A14 is only on account of compounding and compromise of the disputes between the accused persons including the applicant and the victim/defacto complainant Madanan. That such a technical acquittal on account of compounding cannot be equated to an acquittal by exoneration after conduct of trial and that therefore the above said materials at Exts.P1 and P4 is more than sufficient to hold that the applicant is guilty of the memo of charges raised in the impugned disciplinary proceedings. More particularly, the learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the above said cardinal aspects about the very existence and availability of the crucial materials at Exts.P4 and P1 marked in Annexure A13 impugned proceedings have been completely lost sight of by the Tribunal and therefore if these materials have been adverted to by the Tribunal, then the only conclusion that would have been arrived at by any Tribunal, properly inspected on facts and law, would be that the contention of the applicant that there is no evidence, is untenable and that it is well established that the issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to hold a delinquent guilty of the charges in judicial proceedings is beyond the scope and brief of judicial review court. Further, the learned Senior Government Pleader would also invite this Court's attention to page 64 of this paper book, which contains Annexure A11 series of depositions and that the deposition of R.Asok Kumar, the Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the crime and conducted the investigation in the aforesaid crime would also pin point the culpability of the delinquent original applicant, etc. 6. 6. Per contra, Sri C.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would point out that the defacto complainant/victim Madanan, witnesses Anil Kumar and Yasodharan have all been cited as prosecution witnesses in the enquiry proceedings and that they have given their depositions before the Enquiry Officer and none of them have even remotely said anything which would favour the case of the Department that the original applicant was responsible for causing assault on the victim. Further that, during the examination of these witnesses like the first informant, Madanan, and the witnesses Anil Kumar and Yasodharan, not even a single question has been asked by the Presenting Officer as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents in Ext.P4 FIS as well as the statements given by them in Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet and they had not been confronted with the materials at Exts.P4 and P1 at the time they were examined as witnesses by the Presenting Officer and that merely by mechanically producing the above said documents as in Exts.P4 and P1 in Annexure A13 enquiry proceedings will not amount to fulfilling the necessary burden of at least leading minimum acceptable evidence to show the veracity of the contents thereof, more particularly, as the very same witnesses have deposed completely against the version of the Department in their depositions given before the Enquiry Officer as can be seen from a mere reading of Annexure A13 proceedings. Moreover, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have not even adverted to the contents of Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet in the impugned orders at Annexures A3, A5 and A7 respectively and there is not even a remote discussion therein about even the contents of Exts.P4 and P1 and there is not even a remote appreciation of evidential content as to whether those materials at Ext.P4 and P1 would disclose at least minimal acceptable evidence. That since the above said documents were never confronted to the above said witnesses and in view of the above said aspects, it cannot be said that the materials at Exts.P4 and P1 can be relied upon in the enquiry proceedings. 7. That since the above said documents were never confronted to the above said witnesses and in view of the above said aspects, it cannot be said that the materials at Exts.P4 and P1 can be relied upon in the enquiry proceedings. 7. After hearing both sides, there can be no dispute from a mere reading of the impugned Ext.P5 final order rendered by the Tribunal in this case that the Tribunal has not adverted to even the contents of Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet and the statement of the witnesses produced in the said final report, presumably because both sides have not brought those aspects to the notice of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the indisputable fact of the matter is that the Tribunal has not even considered and adverted to the contents of Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet. The said materials at Ext.P4 and Ext.P1 have been produced along with a memo by the learned Senior Government Pleader in this original petition and our attention has been drawn to the contents of the said statement. 8. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that in view of the said materials at Exts.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet, it cannot be said that there was not even an iota of minimal acceptable evidence before the disciplinary authority after the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry proceedings as per Annexure A13 enquiry report. Whether the said materials, at Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet would be sufficient evidence cannot be the subject matter of consideration in judicial review proceedings. Prima facie, we would also opine that at this stage the issue as to whether the said materials at Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet will or will not constitute sufficient evidence to hold the delinquent guilty may not be a proper and relevant matter to be considered by this Court in judicial review and that at this stage, more particularly, as the Tribunal which is a court of first instance to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has not even considered the impact of the same. In that regard, it is also pertinent to note that the issues of no evidence as well as the sufficiency of evidence are inter-related, but are two distinct aspect of the matter. In that regard, it is also pertinent to note that the issues of no evidence as well as the sufficiency of evidence are inter-related, but are two distinct aspect of the matter. In the case as in Secretary, Managing Committee BSM (PG) College, Roorkee v. Samrat Sharma and Others [ (2019) 16 SCC 56 ], it has been held that sufficiency of evidence for proof charges may not be within the domain of judicial review and that courts sitting in exercise of the powers under judicial review may not re-appreciate the evidence tendered in disciplinary proceedings. In State of Bihar & Ors. v. Phulpari Kumari [2020 (3) SCC 130], it has been held in para 6.1 and para.6.2 thereof as follows: “6.1. It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of “no evidence”. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of juridical review. The standard of proof as required in a criminal trial is not the same in a departmental inquiry. Strict rules of evidence are to be followed by the criminal court where the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, preponderance of probabilities is the test adopted in finding the delinquent guilty of the charge. 6.2. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal of the respondent by re-examining the evidence and taking a view different from that of the disciplinary authority which was based on the findings of the inquiry officer. ” 9. It has also been held in the decisions in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [ (2006) 4 SCC 713 ] that interference on the findings of domestic enqiry by a writ court is limited and only in certain circumstances. In the light of these well established principles, we are of the firm view that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in this case at impugned Ext.P5 is liable for interdiction, as the Tribunal has completely lost sight of the matters disclosed from Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet though those documents have been produced and marked as Exts.P4 and P1 respectively in Annexure A13 enquiry proceedings. If the said materials at Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet and the other relevant attendant circumstances thereto, had been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, the only conclusion could have been that the argument of the original applicant that the case is one of no minimal acceptable evidence on record is only to be repelled. Presumably, it is because both sides have not even taken the care and pain to advert to the above said relevant crucial materials disclosed from Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet marked in Annexure A13 enquiry proceedings that the Tribunal could not consider these aspects. 10. However, to say that the argument based on no evidence is not tenable is not the same as to say that the same would also amount to sufficient acceptable evidence, going by the test of preponderance of probabilities. Both sides have made submissions, which we have recorded and taken note of as above. The matter relating to sufficiency or otherwise of the above said materials flowing out from Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet marked in Annexure A13 enquiry proceedings is a matter which should be left to the discretion and consideration of the competent authorities who have the powers to deal with disciplinary proceedings on account of the power vested with them as per the statutory provisions contained in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules which governs the field. It will be rather unsafe and hazardous for us to get into the difficult task of resolving the rival contentions as to whether or not the above said materials would or would not constitute sufficient evidence as to hold the delinquent guilty of the allegations raised in the impugned memo of charges in the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, while we hold that the impugned final order at Ext.P5 is liable for interdiction, the impugned decision in the disciplinary proceedings is also liable for interdiction as the matter is to be reconsidered by the competent authority regarding the sufficiency or otherwise of the above said materials. We have requested both sides whether this Court should remit the matter to the original disciplinary authority or whether the remit should be to the appellate level or to the revisional authority level. We have requested both sides whether this Court should remit the matter to the original disciplinary authority or whether the remit should be to the appellate level or to the revisional authority level. Both sides submitted fairly that to obviate any further delay and since memo charges has been issued in this case at Annexure A1 has been issued as early as on 18.08.2007 and more than 7½ long years have elapsed, it will be only practically expedient to remit the matter to the review/revisional authority concerned, viz, the State Government. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned final order of the Tribunal at Ext.P5 dated 06.01.2020 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1510/2016 will stand set aside. Further, it is ordered that the impugned Annexure A7 revisional/review proceedings dated 04.11.2013 issued by the competent authority of the State Government will stand set aside. Consequently, it is ordered that the review/revision petition filed by the original applicant at Annexure A6 will stand restored to the file of the competent authority of the State Government for reconsideration and decision on Annexure A6 review/revision petition in accordance with law. 11. Rule 36 appended under Part 5 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules and Part 5 of the said Rules captioned with the heading 'Revision' whereas Rule 36 appended thereunder is given the caption 'Review'. Ordinarily, the expression 'review' as in Rule 35 of the KCS (CCA) Rules would apply in cases where the original order is passed by the very same authority before whom the review power is conferred. Possibly, the expression 'review' appearing in Rule 36 coming under Part 5 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules may be misnomer and going by the caption 'review' in Part 5, what is meant to be conveyed is a revisional jurisdiction. Rule 36A appended under Part 5 of the above said Rules reads as follows; “Rule 36A. Possibly, the expression 'review' appearing in Rule 36 coming under Part 5 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules may be misnomer and going by the caption 'review' in Part 5, what is meant to be conveyed is a revisional jurisdiction. Rule 36A appended under Part 5 of the above said Rules reads as follows; “Rule 36A. State Government's power to review.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, on their own motion or otherwise after calling for the records of the case, review any order passed by a subordinate authority which is made or is appealable under these rules, after consultation with the Public Service Commission where such consultation is necessary: (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as they consider proper in the circumstances of the cases; or (d) pass such other orders as they deem fit: Provided that- (i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty, shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such order; (ii) if it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in items (i) to (m) of Rule 15 in a case in which no enquiry under Rule 6 of these rules has been held, such orders shall be passed only after conducting such an inquiry and after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 of these rules.” 12. A reading of Rule 36A would make it clear that though the caption is that power conferred thereunder is to review the matter, the scope and ambit of the said provisions therein would clearly show that the power conferred thereby is one of revision or to call for the records either suo motu on the motion of the Government or otherwise and then to confirm, modify or set aside the order, to impose the penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order, or to remit the case, etc. or pass such other orders as they deem fit, etc. or pass such other orders as they deem fit, etc. Hence, it can be seen that the essence and substance of the content of Rule 36A is one of revision and not merely a review and if the power had been one of review, then ordinarily it would be limited to interference only in cases of errors apparent on face of record or on account of discovery of new materials, which despite due diligence was not available to the parties concerned at the time when the impugned order was passed. Hence, we are of the view that the substance of the content or the power conferred under Rule 36A is one of revisional jurisdiction, though the caption of the Rule is one that of 'review' and these aspects are clear from a reading of the contents of Rule 36 as well as the heading of Part 5 whereunder the said Rule is appended. 13. Be that as it may, to avoid any further delay, it is ordered that the 1st respondent herein/original applicant will be at liberty to give any additional written submissions in the matter that he may deem fit to aid and advance his contentions in the matter and this he can do so within three weeks from the date notified for receiving the certified copy of this judgment along with the certified copy of this judgment and the same may be addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to Government in the Home (H) Department, who has authenticated the order at Annexure A7. After receipt of the additional written submissions of the original applicant, the competent authority of the State Government in the Home Department may afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the original applicant either in person or through his authorised representative/counsel, if any, as may be chosen by him appropriately and then may take a considered decision after going through the entire materials on record as to whether there is not only minimal acceptable evidence, but also sufficient evidence to hold whether or not to hold the delinquent guilty of the charges raised in impugned Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 18.08.2007 and whether the findings made by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority at Annexure A3 and Annexure A5 respectively are liable for interdiction in terms of the powers conferred under Rule 36A of the above said Rules. While doing so, the competent authority of the State Government in the Home Department will also specifically consider the above said contentions of the original applicant mentioned hereinabove that the above said materials at Ext.P4 FIS and Ext.P1 final report/charge sheet marked in Annexure A13 judicial proceedings will not constitute proper evidentiary materials even going by the test of preponderance of probabilities so as to hold the delinquent guilty of the charges raised in the memo of charges. We would also make it clear that a reading of Annexures A3, A5 and A7 would show that there is no proper consideration of the various aspects regarding the guilt of the delinquent in those proceedings, except a bare recital of the summary of the factual aspects and such a casual and mechanical approach should not be there while disposing of Annexure A6 revision/review petition and a thorough and comprehensive exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 36 will be made to determine the various issues in the matter as stated hereinabove. Final orders on Annexure A6 review/revision petition shall be passed by the competent authority of the State Government in the Home Department without much delay, preferably within a period of two months, at any rate within an outer time limit of three months from the date on which the original applicant would submit his additional written submissions in the matter along with certified copy of this judgment as mentioned hereinabove. We make it clear that none of the observations made by this Court hereinabove should be construed as an expression of opinion on our part regarding the merits of the controversy as to whether the above said materials in Annexure A13 judicial proceedings would or would not constitute proper materials even going by the limited test of preponderance of probabilities so as to hold the delinquent guilty of the allegations raised against him at Annexure A1 memo of charges and that matters will fully come within the province and domain of the revisional/ review authority as permitted hereinabove. With these observations and directions the above original petition will stand finally disposed of.