Supreme Court imposes fine on center fighting CISF police dismissal case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reprimanded the government for clogging courts with unnecessary appeals and levying Rs 25,000 as fees challenging the Punjab and Haryana high court’s justified order setting aside the Centre’s decision to sack a CISF officer who helped a couple elope. The officer was removed from service in 2010 for misconduct including absenteeism and collusion with the daughter of a CISF police officer.

We kept shouting pending, pending. SC asks government who are biggest litigants

He allegedly helped her elope and marry his friend at the Arya Samaj Mandir. He approached the HC, which ordered him to be reinstated and pay 25% of his back wages, after which Center appealed to the Supreme Court.At the beginning of Wednesday’s hearing, Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the government’s appeal and said the Centre’s decision to terminate the work was disproportionate. The judges cautioned that the government had contributed to the growing number of pending cases by filing unnecessary cases like this one, and said this was a case in which fines were appropriately imposed.“We kept shouting pendency, pendency. Who was the biggest litigant? The High Court gave him relief. Instead of making an opinion saying you will not go to court.” Supreme Courtyou still continue to fight against him. We do not understand why the Union of India and others approached this court to attack the HC order,” the bench told Solicitor General SD Sanjay.The government tried to tell the court that it was a serious disciplinary case as CISF officials were involved in the elopement of a girl, but the Supreme Court upheld the Supreme Court order, holding that the girl was an adult on the date of marriage and the charges against the official were not established.“Her statement has been recorded and reflects that she entered into the marriage voluntarily and she was an adult on the date of marriage. Therefore, the aforesaid charges are not sustained,” the high court said.