The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Union government while dismissing a petition challenging the relief granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to a CISF constable who had been removed from service for unauthorised absence of 11 days.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the Centre's decision to pursue the matter despite the High Court granting relief reflected unnecessary litigation.
"We fail to understand why the Union of India and others have approached this court by assailing the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. We dismiss this Special Leave Petition (SLP) with cost of Rs 25000," the top court ordered.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna highlighted that the Union of India is the largest litigant, contributing to heavy pendency in the court.
"This is a case for imposing costs with dismissal. We have been shouting. Keep aside your argument. Pendency, pendency; who is the biggest litigant?" Justice Nagarathna said, adding there should be a legal opinion in such cases that if a High Court has found a punishment disproportionate and granted relief by setting aside the orders, the matter should not be taken to the Supreme Court.
The constable in question was dismissed after around 10 years of service on two charges.
The first charge was unauthorised absence from duty for 11 days. The second was alleged misconduct for conniving with the daughter of another CISF constable to leave Mumbai and attend her wedding with his younger brother at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur.
The absence period was during sanctioned medical leave, though the constable was not found available during an inspection.
On the second charge, the woman concerned appeared in the disciplinary proceedings and stated that she had no grievance. It was also not disputed that she had married the constable's brother. The Single Judge set aside the punishment orders, re-instating the constable with continuity of service.
The Division Bench upheld that decision and dismissed the Union's appeal, holding that there was no illegality or perversity in the single judge's findings and that no misconduct was made out to justify removal from service.
Justice Nagarathna referred to the circumstances behind the constable's absence and highlighted that he was also dealing with a family situation involving an elopement.
"Do you know the tension of a family if there is an elopement? He had to set right his family, get them married, and he returned after that," she said.
Counsel for the Union pressed for setting aside the back wages, relying on the principle of "no work, no pay" and highlighted that the matter had remained pending in the High Court for six years for which back wages would have to be paid.
When the counsel continued to press for removal of back wages, the top court decided to impose costs while dismissing the SLP.
