Successive petitions re-agitating issues that attained finality are frivolous and warrant imposition of exemplary costs.

The Petitioner, a police constable, was removed from service on 30.09.1993 following a Departmental Enquiry into allegations of unauthorized absence and the misappropriation of Rs. 40,000 seized during an illegal gambling raid.

The Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner’s challenge (O.A. No. 2069/1994) on 22.03.1997.

While a Single Judge of the High Court reversed the dismissal in 2011, a Division Bench later set aside that reversal in Writ Appeal No. 358/2011, upholding the dismissal.

The Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the Division Bench order before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (2015), a Review Petition (2022), and a Curative Petition (2023), all of which were dismissed.

The Petitioner subsequently filed the present writ petition to again challenge the legality of the original 1997 Tribunal order.

1. Whether a petitioner can maintain a fresh challenge against a 1997 Tribunal order after the matter has attained finality through successive litigation up to the Curative Petition stage in the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the filing of the present petition constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting exemplary costs.

The Court applied the doctrine of finality of litigation and the principle against the abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the precedent set in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) 5 SCC 496, which held that frivolous and groundless filings consume vital judicial resources and must be deterred through the imposition of exemplary costs to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by unscrupulous litigants.

The Petitioner argued that a fresh challenge was permissible because the Division Bench in 2012 (para 37) noted it had not examined the "correctness" of the main 1997 order.

The Court rejected this, observing that the same 2012 judgment (paras 41-42) explicitly found the dismissal to be the "most appropriate punishment" and upheld the Tribunal’s order.

The Court reasoned that because the Supreme Court had already dismissed the SLP, Review, and Curative petitions arising from that 2012 judgment, the matter had attained absolute finality.

The Court characterized the petition as a "misconceived" attempt to revive a "stale issue," noting that allowing such litigative strategies would result in "chaos and indiscipline" within the legal system.

It held that the Petitioner had no right to re-agitate issues already settled by the Supreme Court.

Invoking its duty to weed out frivolous litigation, the Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Petitioner, payable to the Respondents within 45 days.