Karnataka High Court
Sri N K Payannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2025
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.
-
(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
-
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
-
• 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.
-
6. The review petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
