IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 34 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 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, 7TH CROSS KRUSHI COLONY BHAGYANAGAR BELAGAVI-590 006 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY VIKASA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR BENGALURU-560 001 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND REFORMS - 2 VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 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 4 . THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED No.39, 'SHANTHI GRUHA' BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYAKA B., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) 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. 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) 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). 2. 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. 3. The review petition is filed raising the following grounds:- (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. (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. - 4 (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. (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. (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. (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 - 5 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. (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. Further grounds touching on the merits of the case have also been raised. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court:- • Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited and Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 11; • Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) and Another reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362; and - 6 • Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another reported in 2025 INSC 1080. 5. 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. - 7 6. The review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*