E-Paper
SC junks Bihar’s plea, asks to pay ₹20,000 for ‘utter wastage’ of judicial time
New Delhi The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of the Bihar government and imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the state for “utter wastage” of judicial time in a matter which was disposed of by the Patna High Court after both litigating parties had jointly agreed for it
New Delhi
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of the Bihar government and imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the state for “utter wastage” of judicial time in a matter which was disposed of by the Patna High Court after both litigating parties had jointly agreed for it.
A bench of Justices S K Kaul and R S Reddy noted that the state government had filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the apex court against the September last year order of a division bench of the Patna High Court which had disposed of its plea on “agreed terms”.
“... We find this a complete abuse of process of court and that too by a state government, apart from being a utter wastage of judicial time,” the SC bench said.
“We thus, dismiss the SLP with costs of ₹20,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Group ‘C’ (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association within four weeks,” the bench said in its March 22 order.
The apex court said it is open to the state to recover the cost from officers who were responsible for this “misadventure.”
A single-judge bench of HC had, in December 2018, delivered a verdict on a plea filed by the public servant who had challenged a June 2016 memo by which he was served the punishment of major penalty of dismissal from service under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 2005. An FIR was lodged against him for alleged illegal acquisition of property which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and later, he was put under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against him.
The single-judge bench set aside the order of dismissal contained in the June 2016 memo and also quashed the enquiry report.
It had remanded back the matter to the enquiry officer to conduct inquiry in accordance with law.
Later, the division bench of the HC had dealt with an appeal filed by the state against the order.
The apex court said that the HC had noted in its order that after the matter was heard for some time, the counsel appearing before it in the case had jointly prayed that the appeal be disposed of on agreed terms.
