Pandurang Vithal Kevne vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

2024 INSC 1051 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 56230 OF 2024

PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNE … Petitioner (s)

VERSUS

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. … Respondent(s)

ORDER

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed

impugning the order dated 11.06.2024 vide which the High Court1 was

pleased to disallow the petitioner’s Application for condonation of

delay2 and rejected the Second Review Petition.3

2. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.01.10 18:27:05 IST Reason:

1 High Court of Bombay, Maharashtra 2 I.A. No. 2748 of 2021 3 R. P. No. 7558 of 2021 Page 1 of 14 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.

3. Before delving into the specifics of this case, it is imperative

to underscore that the right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our

democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised

responsibly. When litigants, like the petitioner before us, engage in

forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately

delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system.

4. Now, turning to the facts of this case in brief, as is evident

from the material on record, the petitioner was employed as an

Examiner with the respondent No. 1 organization since 1977. In

December 1997, respondent No. 1 issued him a charge sheet for

misconduct due to his frequent and prolonged absence from duty,

without prior permission or intimation. Following a departmental

inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and was removed from service

w.e.f. 14.07.2000. His statutory appeal was dismissed by the appellate

authority. The petitioner then raised an industrial dispute, which was

referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at

Mumbai.

Page 2 of 14

5. On 22.12.2006, the CGIT passed a final award upholding the

petitioner’s removal from service. It ruled that the petitioner’s

absences qualified as misconduct as these were “habitual” and without

prior permission. Even if respondent No. 1 later regularized his

absences, it did not change the fact that he had been absent without

permission. The CGIT also noted that he did not seem interested in

adhering to rules and regulations or exhibiting devotion to his duty.

The respondent No. 1 also got a police investigation done after the

domestic enquiry was initiated, which revealed that the petitioner was

running a business in the name of his wife, at his native place while

being employed under respondent No. 1. As the petitioner raised the

defence of illness, the respondent No. 1 directed him to undergo a

medical examination. He was declared medically fit to resume duty

vide Medical Certificate dated 06.10.1997. However, he did not report

for work until 27.01.1998. Further, he promptly took two days of leave

and proceeded to be absent again for two months.

6. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2584 of 2007, before

the High Court seeking to challenge the CGIT’s award. The High Court

passed a well-reasoned order and upheld the CGIT’s award dated

22.12.2009. The High Court found that the CGIT was correct in

upholding the petitioner’s removal from service, considering his

Page 3 of 14 prolonged and frequent unauthorized absence, his lack of interest in

work, and the fact that he was running a private business while being

employed with respondent No. 1. The Court held that the petitioner's

actions clearly demonstrated that he was not interested in job and was

not a suitable employee for respondent No. 1.

7. On 25.01.2010, the petitioner filed Review Petition No. 6 of

2010, praying for review of judgment dated 05.12.2009 passed in Writ

Petition No. 2584 of 2007. The Court dismissed the review petition,

holding that there were no error apparent on the face of the record.

8. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 19572-19573 of 2010. This Court

dismissed both petitions, finding no merit therein.

9. Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner on 04.10.2012,

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.

10. A perusal of the records shows that the Review Petition No.

6 of 2010 was listed again in the year 2015, despite being dismissed

already on 25.01.2010. The listing records of the case were also tallied

with the web portal of the High Court and the same discrepancy was

Page 4 of 14 found. The Review Petition No. 6 of 2010 once again came to be

dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2015. As there is nothing on record

we are not going in further details.

11. In an attempt to revive his case, the petitioner filed Notice

of Motion No. 71 of 2015, seeking the court’s permission to file a second

review petition despite delay. The High Court on 05.08.2015,

dismissed the motion, reasoning that even if the delay is condoned, a

second review petition would not be legally permissible.

12. Unrelenting, the petitioner filed another Notice of Motion

No. 369 of 2015, seeking to challenge the High Court’s order dated

31.03.2015, which had effectively closed the doors on his review

petition. The High Court vide order dated 18.11.2015 dismissed this

motion as well, holding that it was not maintainable.

13. Once again, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (C)

No. 4170 of 2016 before this Court, challenging aforesaid order of the

High Court. This Court dismissed the SLP on 18.04.2016, declining to

intervene in the matter.

14. 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

Page 5 of 14 authorities including Hon’ble the President of India on 13.02.2012,

Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India on 18.12.2017 and 03.01.2018, and

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 19.01.2021.

15. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court

responded to the petitioner’s letter on 23.02.2021, stating that “without

a proper review petition, nothing can be done to reopen the issues

decided.” The 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 (No. 7558 of 2021) before the High Court along

with an application for condonation of delay.4 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 vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2024. 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

dated 05.12.2009. While disposing of the Second Review Petition (No.

7558 of 2021), the High Court observed that:

4 I.A. No. 2748 of 2021 Page 6 of 14

“7. …Therefore, instead of adding anything more, we only observe that, this Application is nothing but an unscrupulous idea and attempt to take disadvantage of the technical endorsement of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Secondly, as one can easily perceive, the sheer frustration on account of losing the litigation at every stage prompted the Applicant to file this Application coupled with the Review Petition. Thirdly, the Review Petition intended to be filed based on the relief in this Application itself, is wholly misconceived.”

16. Despite the above order, the petitioner did not sit quite.

Challenging the aforesaid order of the High Court, the petitioner has

filed the present Special Leave Petition before this Court.

17. As discussed, 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 forum shopping exercise of the petitioner is summarized

in the table hereinbelow:

Date Proceedings Decision

14.07.2000 Dismissal Order Competent Authority removed the

passed by petitioner from service for

respondent No. 1 misconduct due to frequent and

Page 7 of 14 prolonged absence from duty

without prior permission or

intimation.

- Statutory Appeal Appellate Authority dismissed the

appeal filed by the petitioner,

finding no merits therein.

22.12.2006 CGIT-12 of 2004 Passed an Award upholding the

before CGIT, petitioner’s removal from service.

Mumbai

05.12.2009 W.P. (C) No. 2584 Upheld the CGIT’s Award,

of 2007 before the removing the petitioner from

High Court of service.

Bombay

25.01.2010 R.P. No. 6 of 2010 Dismissed the review petition

before the High finding no error on the face of the

Court record.

30.07.2010 SLP (C) Nos. Dismissed both SLPs challenging

19572-19573 of orders dated 05.12.2009 and

2010 before the 25.01.2010.

Supreme Court

Page 8 of 14

04.10.2012 Complaint to the The petitioner sought an inquiry

Ministry of Law against the Presiding Officer of the

and Justice, CGIT, Mumbai, and the two High

Government of Court judges who had adjudicated

India. his case.

31.03.2015 R.P. No. 6 of 2010 Dismissed the Review Petition once

(Re-listed) before again stating that the dismissal of

the High Court the petitioner’s SLPs had rendered

the review petition infructuous.

05.08.2015 Notice of Motion The petitioner sought permission to

No. 71 of 2015 file another review petition. High

before the High Court dismissed the motion,

Court reasoning that a Second Review

Petition would not be legally

permissible.

18.11.2015 Notice of Motion The petitioner sought permission to

No. 369 of 2015 challenge the order dated

before the High 31.03.2015. Dismissed this motion,

Court stating that it was not maintainable.

Page 9 of 14 18.04.2016 SLP (C) No. 4170 of Dismissed the SLP challenging

2016 before the order dated 18.11.2015, declining

Supreme Court to intervene in the matter.

13.02.2012 Complaint to

Office of Hon'ble

the President of

India

18.12.2017 Complaint to The petitioner alleged corruption

& Hon’ble Prime against the judges who had

03.01.2018 Minister’s Office decided his case.

19.01.2021 Complaint to

Hon'ble the Chief

Justice of Bombay

High Court

11.06.2024 Second R.P. No. High Court dismissed the

7558 of 2021 along application for condonation of

with I.A. No. 2748 delay and the Second Review

of 2021 before the Petition, holding that it was not

High Court. maintainable in law.

[Impugned

Order]

Page 10 of 14

18. 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. We may refer

here an observation given by this Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs

Union of India5:

“150. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. 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. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part.”

19. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others6, has strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system

for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice.

It was observed as under:

5 (2014) 8 SCC 470 : 2014 INSC 367 6 (2010) 2 SCC 114 : 2009 INSC 1277

Page 11 of 14 “1. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.

In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

20. Time and again, this Court has raised deterrence against

frivolous appeals and petitions by imposition of costs on the litigating

parties. This court in the case of K.C. Tharakan Vs State Bank of India

& Ors.7 held the following:

“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. This is complete wastage of judicial time. We, thus, dismiss this petition with costs, though we limit the amount of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed person. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund to be utilized for the SCBA library.”

7 Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 decided on 01.05.2023.

Page 12 of 14 21. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this

Special Leave Petition, hence, the same is dismissed. As there is no

merit in the petition, we don’t deem it appropriate to even condone the

delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is also

dismissed.

22. 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. 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.

23. In the light of facts and circumstances as aforesaid, we are

inclined to impose a cost of ₹ 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lakh) against the

petitioner to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services

Page 13 of 14 Authority within four weeks. On failure, recovery be effected from the

petitioner as arrears of land revenue.

24. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed

of.

…………………………………., J.

[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

…………………………………., J.

[ RAJESH BINDAL ]

New Delhi

December 20, 2024

Page 14 of 14