‘Who are the biggest litigants? Fees should be levied’: SC fines Center Rs 25,000 in CISF dismissal case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday levied Rs 25,000 as costs on the Center challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order staying the dismissal of a CISF officer, finding that the matter involved unnecessary litigation.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the high court’s decision and directed recovery of salary of the officer, finding that the penalty imposed was disproportionate.PTI quoted Justice Nagarathna as saying: “We don’t understand why the Union of India is challenging the order of the high court division bench. What we hear is that it is pending, pending. Who is the largest litigant? Costs should be levied.”“Why can’t there be an opinion that if the High Court finds this to be disproportionate and grants the relief of setting aside all orders, we don’t go to the Supreme Court? He is on medical leave but he also has to deal with the issue of family elopement,” she added. Justice Nagaratna, while addressing a conference organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association recently, said the court takes submissions regarding the government’s role in the backlog very seriously.“It’s not just about going to some resort and coming back. We prepared, we did our homework. We talked. Don’t forget,” she said.The CISF officer was charged with two charges: absence from duty for 11 days and breach of discipline for allegedly allowing a woman, the daughter of a CISF officer, to leave Mumbai to attend her wedding with her brother.However, the High Court noted that the absence for 11 days was explained as the officer was on approved sick leave during the period.Justice Nagarathna noted that during the disciplinary proceedings, the woman involved appeared before the court and stated that she had no grievance against the allegations made by the respondent-applicant that she had eloped with his brother.“Beyond this, it is not in dispute that the brother of the respondent-applicant is married to the lady involved. Therefore, it is proved that there is in fact no misconduct on the part of the respondent for which he could be removed from office,” the High Court said.