The right to access courts is fundamental but must be exercised responsibly; frivolous litigation undermines the legal system and can result in costs imposed on the litigant.

ORDER :

1. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 11.06.2024 vide which the High Court¹ [High Court of Bombay, Maharashtra] was pleased to disallow the petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay² [I.A. No. 2748 of 2021] and rejected the Second Review Petition.³ [R.P. No. 7558 of 2021]

2. This Special Leave Petition before us is yet another stark example of the blatant. 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.

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.

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 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 afores