908-WP-4446-2026(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4446 OF 2026 Kalyan R. Bagade ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India Through Principal Secretary Ministry Of Railways And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Dheeraj Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar, Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 22nd August, 2024, by which the Petitioner's representation dated 18th April, 2023, came to be rejected on the ground that the old records were not available. 2. By representation dated 18th April, 2023, the Petitioner claimed compassionate allowance as per Section 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The representation states that he was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force on the South Central Railway with effect from 29th July, 1977. Charge-sheet was issued on 8th Jamadar-SL 1 of 6 2026:BHC-KOL:9024-DB 908-WP-4446-2026(C).doc December, 1987, for negligence of duty, and after the departmental inquiry was conducted, the charges were proved, and penalty of removal from service was imposed. Accordingly, after the issuance of show-cause notice, by order dated 8th February, 1988, the penalty of removal from service was inflicted. Against the order dated 8th February, 1988, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner on 4th March, 1988, which came to be rejected on 6th June, 1988. The Petitioner came to be acquitted of the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 24th November, 1988. 3. Based on the said facts, the representation states that he was arrested on a false charge of theft and, therefore, could not perform the duty and has been falsely implicated. He was thereafter acquitted. The prayer in the representation was that, considering the circumstances, the punishment of removal from service be modified to compulsory retirement and, in the alternative to grant compassionate allowance as per Section 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The representation further states that by letter dated 24th March, 2004, he had requested for the same; however, the representation dated 24th March, 2004, has not been considered. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would tender the order dated 31st January, 2023, passed in Writ Petition No.16050 of Jamadar-SL 2 of 6 908-WP-4446-2026(C).doc 2022 by this Court. The said order is taken on record. Perusal of the order would indicate identical submissions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner therein of converting the Petitioner's punishment of removal from service into compulsory retirement. The order further indicates reference to Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Paragraph 2 of the order observes that the punishment of removal of the Petitioner from service was imposed in the year 1988, and that the appeal and revision were dismissed so also, the writ petition filed before this Court and therefore, the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner has been upheld. In paragraph 3, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that as the Court has already upheld the order removing the Petitioner from service in the year 1994, it would not be possible to consider the request of the Petitioner. The Hon'ble Division Bench further observed that the representation is also given by the Petitioner in the year 2004, and it would be too late in the day to pass any order in the present writ petition, and the Petition came to be disposed of. 5. Despite the relief being rejected by order dated 31st January, 2023, the Petitioner filed identical representation on 18th April, 2023. Perusal of paragraph 2 of the Petition would indicate that the facts which are set out in the Petition were the same facts which were placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Petition Jamadar-SL 3 of 6 908-WP-4446-2026(C).doc No.16050 of 2022. The Petition does not make any reference to Writ Petition No.16050 of 2022 or the order dated 31st January, 2023. 6. The Petition proceeds on the basis that the representation dated 18th April, 2023, has been wrongly rejected on the ground that the records are not available, and therefore seeks a direction to decide the representation dated 18th April, 2023. As the representation dated 18th April, 2023, makes a reference to the representation dated 24th March, 2004, seeking the same claim of conversion to compulsory retirement or grant of compassionate allowance as per Section 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, it is evident that though this Court, by order dated 31st January, 2023, held that the representation given in the year 2004 could not be considered, once again, in the year 2023, subsequent to the order dated 31st January, 2023, the representation has been made, and after rejection of the representation, again the Petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief which was denied by the order dated 31st January, 2023. 7. Though, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes a reference to a Government Resolution; there is no reference to the Government Resolution in the Petition. 8. During the hearing on 16th September, 2026, in view of the previous order passed by this Court, we inquired with the learned Jamadar-SL 4 of 6 908-WP-4446-2026(C).doc counsel for Petitioner whether the Petitioner will withdraw the Petition, and the matter was listed today. On instructions, the Petition was once again argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 9. It is expected that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands and there should not be suppression of facts. In the present case, we find that the Petitioner has suppressed the order dated 31st January, 2023, passed in Writ Petition No.16050 of 2022, and seeks a second bite at the cherry. It is of no assistance to keep on filing representations and, upon rejection of the representations, to keep on approaching the Courts once the Court has already held that punishment has been upheld and that it would be too late in the day to pass any order on representation of the year 2004. The filing of a fresh representation would not give rise to a fresh cause of action to the Petitioner to again agitate the same cause. The present Petition is clearly an abuse of the process of law and the Respondents are compelled to answer the Petition twice over. 10. In light of the same, the Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid by the Petitioner to the “Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench Bar Association, Kolhapur, within a period of one week from today. The details of the Bank Account are as follows:- Jamadar-SL 5 of 6 908-WP-4446-2026(C).doc Bank Name : Shri. Gajanan Nagari Shakari Patsantha, Marya, Patolewadi, Kolhapur Account holder : BOMBAY HIGH COURT KOLHAPUR BENCH BAR ASSOCIATION AD-HOC COMMITTEE Branch : Shahupuri, Kolhapur. Account No. : 00032010001745 11. Stand over to 24th September, 2026 under the caption “Compliance”. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar-SL 6 of 6