‘Who is the biggest litigant? Cost should be imposed’: SC imposes Rs 25,000 penalty on Centre over CISF dismissal case | India News
The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the Center challenging an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that dismissed the CISF officer, observing that the matter was involved in unnecessary litigation.Upholding the High Court’s judgment, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuiyan also directed that the officer be granted back wages, saying the punishment meted out was disproportionate.“We do not understand why the Union of India has challenged the division bench order of the High Court. We are hearing pendency, pendency. Who is the biggest litigant? Costs should be imposed,” said Justice Nagarathna, quoted by PTI.“Why can’t there be an opinion that if the high court finds it inconsistent and grants relief by setting aside all the orders, then we don’t go to the Supreme Court? He took medical leave but he also had to deal with a runaway in his family,” he added. Referring to his recent remarks at a conference organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Nagarathna said the court has taken the observations about the government’s role in the backlog of cases very seriously.“It’s not just going to a resort and coming back. We’ve prepared, we’ve done our homework. We’ve talked. Not to be forgotten,” he said.Two charges were filed against the CISF officer, absent from duty for 11 days and alleged indiscipline with a woman, the daughter of a CISF constable, who allegedly left Mumbai to attend her younger brother’s wedding.The High Court, however, noted that the absence of 11 days was explained, as the officer was on sanctioned medical leave during that period.Justice Nagarathna noted that during the disciplinary proceedings, the woman involved appeared and said that she had no complaint against the respondent-petitioner regarding her alleged eloping with her brother.“It is otherwise not in dispute that the brother of the respondent-petitioner was married to the lady concerned. Hence it is found that there was in fact no misconduct on the part of the respondent for which he could be removed from service,” the High Court said.
