Supreme Court of India
Pandurang Vithal Kevne vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 20 December, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J.K. Maheshwari
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 1277Page 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