[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S Purushothama vs The Chairman on 26 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
RP No. 618 of 2024
Reserved on : 18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 26.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
REVIEW PETITION No. 618 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION No.26318 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. S. PURUSHOTHAMA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3 MONTHS,
S/O LATE SRI T.SONNAPPA,
PERSONAL SECRETARY CUM
JUDGMENT WRITER,
Digitally O/O REGISTRAR,
signed by
VINUTHA B S K.S.A.T., 7TH FLOOR,
Location: KANDAYA BHAVANA,
High Court of K.G.ROAD,
Karnataka
BENGALURU-560 009.
RESIDING AT
No.52, 3RD FLOOR,
2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
P.G.HALLI,
BENGALURU 560 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. PURUSHOTHAMA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
-2-
RP No. 618 of 2024
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
7TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
7TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
D.P.A.R., VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2;
SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 21.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WRIT PETITION No.26318/2023 (ANNEXURE A), IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri S. Purushothama, petitioner appearing as
party-in-person and Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 26318/2023 (S-
KSAT) has filed the present review petition seeking review of
the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Court.
3. The petitioner filed Application No. 3564/2022 before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench (for
short, "the Tribunal"), challenging the order of suspension and
the order of punishment whereby two annual increments were
withheld with cumulative effect. The Tribunal rejected the
application by order dated 02.03.2023. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed Review Application No. 25/2023 before the
Tribunal, which also came to be dismissed by order dated
09.10.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner
filed the writ petition before this Court.
4. It was primarily contended that the Chairman of the
Tribunal had no authority to deploy the petitioner to the
Belagavi Bench. This Court, upon noticing that the petitioner
had failed to report for duty at the Belagavi Bench, had signed
the attendance register maintained at the Principal Bench,
Bengaluru, despite having been relieved, and had disobeyed
the instructions of the Chairman of the Tribunal by using
intemperate language, held that such conduct amounted to
insubordination and indiscipline. This Court further held that the
disciplinary enquiry having culminated in the imposition of a
major penalty, namely withholding of two annual increments
with cumulative effect, was justified.
4.1 With regard to the contention concerning the power of
the Chairman to transfer/deploy the petitioner to other Benches
of the Tribunal, this Court, by reference to Section 13(1A) of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, held that the power of
general superintendence over the employees is vested in the
Chairman. Upon consideration of the aforesaid aspects and for
detailed reasons assigned therein, this Court dismissed the writ
petition.
5. The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, submits
that this Court has failed to properly appreciate the contention
that the Chairman of the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction and
authority to deploy the petitioner to the Belagavi Bench. It is
further contended that such power is not vested in the
Chairman and that the said contention has not been duly
considered by this Court.
6. We have considered the submissions urged by the
petitioner - party-in-person.
7. The grounds urged in support of the review petition are a
reiteration of the grounds urged in the writ petition, which have
already been considered and answered by this Court. The
contentions advanced in the present review petition, in
substance, amount to re-arguing the very grounds that were
examined and adjudicated in the writ proceedings.
8. It is a settled position of law that a review petition can be
entertained only to correct an error apparent on the face of the
record, without necessitating a detailed re-hearing of the
matter. Under the guise of seeking review, it is impermissible
to re-argue the case or to reiterate the grounds that have
already been considered and answered in the writ petition.
9. We find no error apparent on the face of the record
warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
