[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ramgovind Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14441-DB
NAFR
SUNITA
GOSWAMI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by SUNITA
WPS No. 1136 of 2026
GOSWAMI
Date:
2026.03.27 Reserved on 20/03/2026
13:58:31
+0530
Pronounced on 27/03/2026
Ramgovind Shukla S/o Omkarnath Shukla, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Berawa, Khargapur, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh (Earlier State of Madhya Pradesh) Through
Secretary Department of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District : Raipur (CG)
2 - Director General of Police Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter Raipur,
District : Raipur (CG)
3 - Inspector General of Police Durg Range, District : Durg (CG)
4 - Dy. Inspector General of Police, Raipur Zone, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
5 - Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon (CG)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Prabha Shankar Pandey and Mr. Aman
Upadhyay, Advocates
For State/Respondents : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A.
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.
1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality
and propriety of the order, dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench At Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'), whereby, the Original Application No.2069/1994 filed by
the petitioner, has been dismissed in terms of the order dated
22.03.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the said authority in
O.A.No.2065/1994 "Moturam Vs. State of M.P. & Others".
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner-
Ramgovind Shukla, who was posted in Police Station, Manpur,
District Rajnandgaon as a Constable, was faced a Departmental
Enquiry, along with others, namely, Moturam, Rajkumar,
Bhuvaneshwar and one Ashok Kumar Sahu, pertaining to the
allegations that they were absent from their duties without
permission on 22.09.1992, coupled with the allegations that they
raided the 'Badi' of one Pusuram Sinha at village Motipur during
the intervening night of 11th and 12th September, 1992, where they
caught several persons gambling, but despite the seizure of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) from them, the same was
distributed amongst themselves without registering any case in
connection with the alleged crime.
3. In the said Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner and others were
held guilty and were accordingly, removed from service vide order,
dated 30.09.1993 passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Rajnandgaon, which was affirmed vide order dated 31.12.1993
and 27.06.1994, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Raipur Range and the Director General of Police, Bhopal,
respectively, in appeal preferred by the petitioner and others.
4. It appears further that being aggrieved with the aforesaid dismissal
in departmental proceedings, an original application, being
O.A.No.2069/1994, was preferred by the petitioner before the
Tribunal, who vide its order impugned dated 22.03.1997
(Annexure P-1) has dismissed the same in terms of the order
dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Tribunal in
O.A.No.2065/1994 "Moturam Vs. State of M.P. & Others". The
said order was, however, reviewed by the Tribunal in
Miscellaneous Application No.93/1997 preferred by the petitioner
and others' vide its common order dated 29.06.1999 (Annexure P-
8) and the matter was, accordingly, directed to be reopened for its
re-hearing and upon dissolution of the State Administrative
Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as
"Writ Petition (S) No.978/2005".
5. In the aforesaid petition, this Court vide its common order dated
04.04.2011 (Annexure P-9) has reversed the said dismissal order
passed in the said Departmental Enquiry while directing for the
reinstatement of the petitioner and others without back-wages as
their conduct was found to be serious in nature.
6. It is to be seen further that, being aggrieved with the aforesaid
order, an appeal, being Writ Appeal No.358/2011, was preferred by
the State Government, along with others', namely, Writ Appeal
No.342/2011, Writ Appeal No.343/2011, Writ Appeal No.344/2011
and Writ Appeal No.345/2011, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court by way of its common order dated 14.08.2012
(Annexure P-10) has allowed the same, while upholding the order
dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure P-1), as passed by the Tribunal and
that by reversing the order dated 04.04.2011 passed in Writ
Petition (S) No.978/2005. It is to be seen further that the said
order was sought to be reviewed by the petitioner and others, but
the same was dismissed vide common order dated 12.03.2013
(Annexure P-11), passed in Review Petition No.170/2012 and
others, i.e. Review Petition No.168/2012 and Review Petition
No.169/2012.
7. It appears further that the petitioner and others', being dissatisfied
with the aforesaid order have preferred Special Leave Petitions
(Civil), bearing Nos.6618-6625/2015, before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, where the same were dismissed vide common order dated
17.04.2015 (Annexure P-12) and, the Review Petition, being
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 27636 of 2021, preferred there-
against, along with others, was also dismissed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court vide its common order dated 03.02.2022
(Annexure P-13) and the same was the fate in Curative Petition
(Civil) No.209/2023 vide common order dated 20.09.2023.
8. After the dismissal of the aforesaid petitions, the instant petition
has been filed by the petitioner- Ramgovind Shukla alone
questioning the propriety of the order dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure
P-1) passed in O.A.No.2069/1994 and, the counsel appearing for
the petitioner while referring to the observation made at paragraph
37 of the order, dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed in Writ
Appeal No. 358/2011, submits that since the correctness of the
alleged order dated 22.03.1997 passed in O.A.No.2065/1994 was
not examined, therefore, under such circumstances, the petitioner
has a right to question the same now by way of filing this petition.
9. In order to consider the aforesaid contention, it is necessary, not
only to examine the said observation made at paragraph 37 in the
said order dated 14.08.2012, but the entire of its findings made
therein are required to be seen. Paragraph 37 of the said order
reads as under :-
"37. Since this writ petition does not arise out of main order
dismissing the original applications of the respondents and
hence, we cannot examine the legality and correctness of the
main order dated 22.03.1997 passed in O.A. No.2065/1994 in
this writ petition, In other words, the main order could be
challenged by the respondents herein only whose original
application was dismissed by such order. It was not done
either in past or here by not filing any cross objection and
hence, it has attained the finality as against the respondents".
10. What has been observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in
the aforesaid paragraph that, since the respondents therein, i.e.
the petitioner- herein and others' have failed to assail the same,
i.e. the main order dated 22.03.1997 passed in O.A.No.2065/1994,
therefore, the same has attained its finality.
11. It is to be noted at this juncture, the observations made at
paragraphs 41 and 42, which read as under :-
"41. Needless to say, since the charges levelled against the
respondents were very serious and they having been proved,
in domestic inquiry, the dismissal was the most appropriate
punishment to them as per Rules. It did not require any
leniency in awarding. It was rightly upheld by the SAT by their
order dated 22.03.1997 passed in O.A. Νο.2065/1994.
42. In the light of foregoing discussion, and the view that we
have taken, we are of the view that dismissal order of the
respondent from the services deserves to be upheld and is
accordingly upheld".
12. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid orders, that the
order dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal,
though reversed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
04.04.2011 (Annexure P-9), but was found to be affirmed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 14.08.2012
(Annexure P-10) passed in Writ Appeal No. 358/2011 while
reversing the said order dated 04.04.2011 and, was affirmed
further by the Supreme Court even upto the disposal of the
Curative Petition (Civil) No. 209/2023 vide order dated 20.09.2023.
13. In view of the said observations, it cannot be said that the
petitioner would be entitled to question the same as alleged herein
by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and, based upon the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant petition as framed
and filed questioning the order dated 22.03.1997 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the Tribunal, appears to be rather misconceived in
nature and cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law from
the stretch of any imagination and, deserves to be dismissed with
an exemplary cost in the light of the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Dnyandeo Sabaji naik and
another vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, reported in
(2017) 5 SCC 496, wherein, the Supreme Court has deprecated
specifically the conduct of the litigants in flooding the Court with
frivolous litigations as a result of which, the genuine matters, which
require consideration are delayed. The relevant observations
made therein at paragraphs 13 and 14 read as under:-
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt
with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with
the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about
the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along
the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of
judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even
necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law
which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the
truth.
14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being
an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and
groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time and clog the
infrastructure. Productive resources which should be
deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in
attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by
prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No
litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as
the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing
justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the
legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple
issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how
successive applications have been filed to prolong the
inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice
lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated
attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed
only if courts across the system adopt an institutional
approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to
justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A
strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will
not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies
designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial
action is taken by all courts here and now our society will
breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It
is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations.
The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument
which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent
the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can
set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the
concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of
real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to
courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances.
Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes
simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the
system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass.
Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and
obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system
is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to
defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with
frivolous filings in the same manner."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. In view of the aforesaid mandate given by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, the instant petition deserves to be and, is hereby dismissed
with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
payable to the respondents by the petitioner within a period of 45
days from today.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
sunita
