Sri N K Payannavar, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2025RP/34/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Anu Sivaraman & Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.) dismisses review petition against judgment dated 04.01.2024 in W.A. No.491/2023 (S-RES); holds review is an appeal in disguise, no error apparent on face of record under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w S.114 CPC; grounds on disciplinary charges, Rule 8.1(v) C&R Rules 2001, Rule 59 KCS (CCA) Rules 1957, Whistle Blower Act, Rs.40 lakh alleged loss and retirement (31.07.2021) already considered; Apex Court decisions (2023) 8 SCC 11, (2024) 2 SCC 362 and 2025 INSC 1080 cited by respondents 3 & 4 referred.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is clearly an appeal in disguise. ¶55

Sri N K Payannavar, Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58-59

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has raised any error apparent on the face of the judgment under review (judgment dated 04.01.2024 in Writ Appeal No.491/2023 (S-RES)) so as to enable this Court to invoke its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC. +1 more

¶55

Court's answer

The review petition is clearly an appeal in disguise.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

All the grounds raised in the review petition have already been considered in the writ petition and no ground to review the judgment has been made out by the petitioner.

¶55

Key takeaways

The petitioner has not raised any error apparent on the face of the judgment under review so as to enable this Court to invoke the power of review.ratio¶55
It was not pointed out how the alleged error, if any, could have made any difference to the conclusion arrived at in the judgment under review.ratio¶55
There is no sustainable ground raised for reviewing the judgment rendered after considering the contentions advanced on either side.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No. 34 of 2024 under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC against the Division Bench judgment dated 04.01.2024 in Writ Appeal No.491/2023 (S-RES) — Grounds raised: letter addressed to Managing Director, improper reliance on Charge No.4 (held not proved), Charge No.6 as insubordination, non-consideration of invocation of the Whistle Blower Act, gravity of misconduct, alleged monetary loss of Rs.40,00,000/- after nearly 25 years of service, non-specification of the period of reduction as mandated by Rule 8.1(v) of the Cadre, Recruitment, Probation, Promotion and Seniority Rules, 2001 read with Rule 59 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and punishment order dated 30.06.2021 received 13 days before retirement on 31.07.2021 — Held: the review petition is clearly an appeal in disguise; all grounds were already considered in the writ petition; no error apparent on the face of the judgment under review; it was not pointed out how any error could have made a difference to the conclusion; no sustainable ground for review — Review petition dismissed (Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.; per Anu Sivaraman, J.).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 34 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. N.K. PAYANNAVAR S/O KALLAPPA PAYANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KREDL) R/AT. H.No.235, 7^TH CROSS KRUSHI COLONY BHAGYANAGAR BELAGAVI-590 006

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIKASA SOUDHA, 2^ND FLOOR BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

¶15

ADMINISTRATION AND REFORMS

¶16

¶17

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶19

3 . M/S. KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LTD. No.39, 'SHANTHI GRUHA' BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶20

4 . THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED No.39, 'SHANTHI GRUHA' BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYAKA B., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER IN WRIT APPEAL No.491/2023 DATED 04.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND PASS APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE ORDERS.

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶31

This review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 04.01.2024, passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.491/2023 (S-RES).

¶32

We have heard Shri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri. R Subramanya, learned counsel for Shri. Vinayaka B, learned advocate appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶33

The review petition is filed raising the following

¶34

grounds:-

¶35

(i) The letter referred to in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order was addressed to the Managing Director not to any subordinate officer and contains no arrogance.

¶36

(ii) Charge No.4 was held to be not proved and has been improperly relied upon by the respondents in the order challenged before the learned Single Judge.

¶37

¶38

¶39

(iii) Charge No.6 cannot be considered as an act of insubordination by the petitioner, who was then serving as Deputy General Manager and General Manager. The communication addressed to the State Government merely conveyed the true state of affairs. The petitioner has also invoked the provisions of the Whistle Blower Act, a contention that was not duly considered and therefore requires a review.

¶40

(iv) The gravity of alleged misconduct has not been duly considered either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶41

(v) As a result of the punishment, the petitioner to incur a monetary loss of about Rs.40,00,000/- despite having rendered nearly 25 years of unblemished service in the respondent organisation.

¶42

(vi) The finding in paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment refers to Rule 8.1(v) of Cadre, Recruitment, Probation, Promotion and Seniority Rules, 2001 ('C&R Rules' for short) which mandates specifying the period of reduction to a lower stage in the

¶43

¶44

¶45

time scale. Rule 59 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, emphasizes the necessity of specifying the period of reduction. As per Rule 59 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules any order passed under Rules 8.1(v) of the C&R Rules without such specification is in violation of Rules 59.

¶46

(vii) The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2021 and since the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 was received on 15.07.2021, leaving 13 days before retirement the order became inoperative and cannot be implemented.

¶47

Further grounds touching on the merits of the case have also been raised.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for respondents

¶49

No.3 and 4 has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court:-

¶50

Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited and Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 11;

¶51

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) and Another reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362; and

¶52

¶53

¶54

Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another reported in 2025 INSC 1080.

¶55

Having considered the contentions advanced as well as the clear findings in the judgment under review, we are of the opinion that this review petition is clearly an appeal in disguise. All the grounds which have been raised in the review petition have already been considered in the writ petition and no ground to review the judgment has been made out by the petitioner. We are of the clear view that the petitioner has not raised any error apparent on the face of the judgment under review so as to enable this Court to invoke the power of review. Though vociferous arguments have been raised, it is not pointed out how the error, if any could have made any difference to the conclusion arrived at in the judgment. We are of the opinion that there is no sustainable ground raised for reviewing the judgment which has been rendered after considering the contentions advanced on either side, including the contentions now raised in the review petition.

¶56

¶57

¶58