Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha Kappali vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2025
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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*
