New Delhi, April 1 The Supreme Court on Monday imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the Centre for pursuing unnecessary litigation, after the Centre challenged a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that overturned the dismissal of a CISF official.
Upholding the high court ruling, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan also ordered the official to receive back wages, finding the punishment to be disproportionate.
"We fail to understand why the Union of India has challenged the high court division bench's order. We hear about pendency, pendency. Who is the biggest litigant? A fine should be imposed," Justice Nagarathna said.
"Why can't there be an opinion that if the high court found the punishment to be disproportionate and granted relief by overturning all the orders, we should not go to the Supreme Court? He took medical leave, but he also had to deal with a family member eloping," she observed.
Referring to her recent statement at a conference organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association about the government being responsible for the backlog in cases, Justice Nagarathna said the court had taken the SCBA conference very seriously.
"It wasn't just about going to a resort and returning. We made preparations, we did our homework. We spoke. And we didn't forget," she said.
The CISF official was charged with being absent from duty for 11 days, and with having committed an act of indiscipline by colluding with a woman, the daughter of a CISF constable, to flee from Mumbai and attend her wedding with her younger brother.
The high court noted that the 11-day absence was explained by the fact that the official was on sanctioned medical leave during that period.
"With regard to the other charge of the lady running away with the respondent-petitioner's brother, it has come on record that the lady herself appeared during the disciplinary proceedings and stated that she had no grievance against the respondent-petitioner.
"It is also undisputed that the respondent-petitioner's brother had married the concerned lady. Therefore, it has been found that the respondent did not commit any misconduct for which he could be removed from service," the high court said.