Supreme Court Fines Centre ₹25,000 For Challenging CISF Constable Relief

The bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling, which had set aside the constable’s dismissal and awarded 25% back wages, finding the punishment to be disproportionate.

“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 SLP with cost of ₹25,000,” the Court said in its order.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna strongly criticised the Centre for contributing to mounting pendency in courts by filing avoidable appeals. “We hear pendency, pendency; who is the biggest litigant?” she remarked, underscoring the government’s role as the largest litigant in the country.

The Court emphasised that law officers should exercise better judgment before escalating matters to the Supreme Court, particularly in cases where High Courts have already granted relief after finding punishment disproportionate. “Why can’t there be an opinion that if the High Court has found it disproportionate and granted relief, we shall not go to the Supreme Court?” Justice Nagarathna observed.

The case pertained to a CISF constable who was dismissed from service after approximately ten years on two charges, unauthorised absence for 11 days and alleged misconduct relating to assisting the daughter of another CISF personnel in leaving Mumbai and attending her marriage with his younger brother at an Arya Samaj temple in Raipur.

The High Court, however, found both charges unsustainable. It noted that the constable’s absence coincided with sanctioned medical leave, though he was not present during an inspection. On the second charge, the woman concerned had appeared during disciplinary proceedings and stated that she had no grievance against the constable. It was also undisputed that she had married his brother.

A Single Judge had initially set aside the dismissal, directing reinstatement with continuity of service. The Division Bench upheld this decision, observing that there was no illegality or perversity in the findings and that no misconduct was made out to justify removal from service.

Despite this, the Union government approached the Supreme Court, pressing for setting aside the grant of back wages on the principle of “no work, no pay.” It also pointed out that the matter had remained pending before the High Court for several years, which would result in a financial burden on the exchequer.

The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded. While it condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, it declined to interfere with the High Court’s findings or the grant of back wages. Justice Nagarathna also referred to the personal circumstances surrounding the constable’s absence, noting that he was 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 remarked.

Significantly, the Court linked the case to broader concerns about litigation policy, recalling discussions at a recent conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, where the issue of excessive government litigation was flagged. “We have taken the conference very seriously… We made preparation, we have done homework,” Justice Nagarathna said.

By imposing costs on the Union, the Court sent a clear message against routine and mechanical challenges to well-reasoned High Court orders, especially in service matters where proportionality of punishment has already been judicially examined.