IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO.464 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA KAPPALI S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA KAPPALI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE R/AT. No.172 SUVARNA DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT 'A' BLOCK, 10TH CROSS DAVANAGERE-577 006 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE & Ms. ANUSHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ MULTI STORIED BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT) 2 . KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTI STORIED BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - 2 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR) 3 . UPA LOKAYUKTA MULTI STORIED BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR) 4 . THE ENQUIRY OFFICER ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ENQUIRY-4 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTISTORIED BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114, ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO REVIEW AND RECALL THE ORDER DATED 26TH JULY 2024 PASSED IN W.P.No.7879/2023 (S-KAT) PRAYING TO (a) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 26TH JULY 2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.7879/2023 (S-KSAT) AND RESTORE TO ITS FILE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.12.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7879/2023(S-KSAT). 2. We have heard Shri. Shridhar Prabhu and Ms. Anusha D, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 3. The grounds raised in support of the review petition are that the petitioner is suffering from serious health conditions such as high levels of creatine and urea and he is bedridden. It is submitted that he had raised and produced the relevant documents which could not be produced before the Tribunal or this Court in the writ petition. It is submitted that the RTI documents produced along with the review petition would show that the Backward Classes Department (BCD) had only one Hostel which was located at 'Shivakumara Swamy Layout', Davanagere, and it - 4 is in the said Hostel that construction was carried out by the petitioner. 4. It is contended that right from the inception all the permissions were obtained by the BCD and therefore the construction was done by the petitioner in the correct premises i.e., the Post-metric Vocational Boys Hostel at 'Shivakumara Swamy Layout', Davanagere. It is contended that the BCD does not have Hostels in the 'Saraswathi Layout', Davanagere, and that therefore the entire charges raised against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings itself are untenable. 5. We notice that the construction in question was undertaken in the year 2009-10. A complaint was lodged on 30.08.2013 stating that the construction was carried out in incorrect premises. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24.01.2014 and an additional reply on 13.08.2014. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an enquiry report was prepared on 28.06.2018. The finding is that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Based on the said report, the punishment of - 5 reduction of pay by four stages with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. He had challenged the imposition of penalty by filing an Application No.1394/2019 before the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), which was rejected on 25.05.2022. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.7879/2023 (S-KSAT). 6. The contentions of the petitioner were considered in full and a judgment was rendered rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground that the findings of fact entered in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be re-appreciated either by the Tribunal or this Court exercising the power of judicial review. The petitioner now attempts to re-open the findings entered in the disciplinary enquiry by producing material to show that the construction was carried out in the correct premises itself. 7. We notice that there are absolutely no grounds raised in the review petition which would justify the review of a judgment rendered after considering the entire materials placed on record as well as the arguments raised - 6 on either side. There is no apparent error on the face of the record, to exercise review jurisdiction. Though, the learned counsel has attempted to raised questions on proportionality of the punishment before us at this stage, we notice that the said aspect had also been raised before the Tribunal as well as this Court and had been considered in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The petitioner, who had been specifically put on notice of the complaint raised against him as early as in January 2014, ought to have produced any material that he relies on in the enquiry and the production of such material before us in these proceedings would serve no purpose at all. 8. Though, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a person, who had 36 years of unblemished service and that he was deprived of his admitted pensionary benefits for no fault of his for more than two years. We are of the opinion that those are matters, which he has to raise before the appropriate authorities in the Government and that the review petition filed on those grounds would not be maintainable. - 7 9. The review petition therefore fails and is dismissed. However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner raising a claim for interest on delayed payment of DCRG and other pensionary benefits as also filing a petition before the Government seeking leniency in the matter of punishment imposed. If such a representation is preferred within three weeks from today, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Pending IA., if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE cp*