The apex court took a strong exception to repeated pleas filed by a man against his dismissal from service due to his habitual absence from duties without intimation and imposed Rs one lakh cost on him for 'polluting streams of justice and choking system of court'.

 

"This special leave petition before us is yet another stark example of the blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process. The petitioner, seemingly blinded by his own sense of grievance, has embarked on a relentless and frivolous litigation spree, dragging this court and the High Court through multiple meritless review petitions, appeals, and motions, all stemming from his well-reasoned removal from service. This is one of the reasons which results in choking the dockets in courts," a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal said.

 

Petitioner Pandurang Vithal Kevne approached the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court's order of June 11, 2024, which disallowed his application for condonation of delay and rejection of second review petition.

 

The petitioner was employed as an examiner with the BSNL since 1977. In December 1997, he was issued a charge sheet for misconduct due to his frequent and prolonged absence from duty, without prior permission or intimation. Following a departmental inquiry, he was found guilty and was removed from service w.e.f. July 14, 2000. His statutory appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. He raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Mumbai, which upheld his removal.

 

BSNL also got a police investigation done after the domestic inquiry was initiated, which revealed that the petitioner was running a business in the name of his wife, at his native place while being employed with it. As the petitioner raised the defence of illness, the BSNL directed him to undergo a medical examination, which declared him medically fit to resume duty. However he did not report to duty and when joined months after, again proceeded to be absent.

 

He filed a writ petition before the High Court which rejected his plea finding his prolonged and frequent unauthorised absence, lack of interest in work, and the fact that he was running a private business while being employed to hold that his actions clearly demonstrated that he was not interested in the job and was not a suitable employee.

 

The High Court also dismissed the review petition, finding no error apparent on the face of the record. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed special leave, which was also dismissed for having no merit therein.

 

Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner in 2012, filed an application to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, seeking an inquiry against the Presiding Officer of the CGIT, Mumbai and the two High Court judges who had adjudicated his case, including the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

 

In an attempt to revive his case, the petitioner filed notice of motion in 2015, seeking the court’s permission to file a second review petition despite delay. The High Court dismissed the motion, reasoning that even if the delay is condoned, a second review petition would not be legally permissible.

 

Unrelenting, the petitioner filed another notice of motion in 2015, seeking to challenge the High Court’s order of 2015, which had effectively closed the doors on his review petition. The High Court in 2015 dismissed this motion as well, holding that it was not maintainable.

 

Once again, the petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in 2016, declining to intervene in the matter.

 

"At every stage the petitioner failed. Initial findings of misconduct and the legitimacy of his dismissal confirmed. After exhausting his legal remedies, the petitioner filed complaints alleging corruption against the judges who decided his case to several authorities including the President of India on 13.02.2012, the Prime Minister of India on 18.12.2017 and 03.01.2018, and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 19.01.2021," the bench noted.

 

The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court responded to the petitioner’s letter on February 23, 2021, stating that “without a proper review petition, nothing can be done to reopen the issues decided.”

 

The court noted that petitioner seized upon this administrative note as a green light to re-litigate his case. In March 2021, the petitioner filed a second review petition before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay. The High Court, clearly exasperated by the petitioner's persistent and frivolous attempts to revive a long-settled matter, heard the interim application and decided the same by the impugned order on June 11, 2024.

 

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding that it was absolutely baseless and not maintainable in law. It further emphasized the lack of merit in condoning the colossal and inordinate delay of 4088 days (11 years and two months) in reviewing an order of 2009.

 

"Despite this order, the petitioner did not sit quite. Challenging the order of the High Court, the petitioner has filed the present special leave petition before this court. The petitioner has jumped from one forum to another, both legal and administrative, agitating his grievance repeatedly, despite the same being well-settled through reasoned orders," the bench said.

 

The court said the petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation has wasted the court’s valuable time and resources. "It is in interest of justice that genuine and timely claims are addressed efficiently, without being hindered by such unscrupulous litigation," the bench said.

 

The bench referred to the observation by the top court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India (2014), that one needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim.

 

In Dalip Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010), the apex court strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice, the bench pointed out.

 

In the case of K C Tharakan Vs State Bank of India & Ors (2023), this court held no legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is resolved at highest level, the bench stressed.

 

The court dismissed the special leave petition and the application for condonation of delay.

 

"Considering that precious time of this court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System," the bench said.

 

The bench felt such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others.

 

"The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation," the bench said.

 

The court directed the petitioner to submit Rs one lakh as cost with Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, which would be recovered as arrears of land revenue in case of failure.