Today, On 18th October, The Supreme Court criticized state governments for filing frivolous petitions, imposing a Rs. 1 lakh fine on the state of Jharkhand. The Court expressed frustration, noting that despite repeated warnings, state governments continue this practice. It emphasized the need for responsible legal conduct, urging states to refrain from wasting judicial time.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the State of Jharkhand for filing a frivolous appeal, stressing that such practices must be brought to an end.
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan noted that, despite repeated warnings over the past six months, the State government’s conduct had not improved.
Read Also: Jharkhand HC Fines Union Minister Arjun Munda Rs 1.25 Lakh for “Unrectified Errors”
The Bench remarked,
“The practice of States filing frivolous petitions needs to stop. Despite our repeated warnings, the attitude of State governments does not change. We have been telling this for 6 months,”
The Court also directed that the costs be distributed between the welfare funds of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The State was given liberty to recover the costs from the official responsible for the litigation.
The case pertained to a government employee who was dismissed from service in 2011 following a departmental inquiry that leveled 14 charges against him, including indiscipline, dereliction of duty, and failure to follow orders.
The employee contested his dismissal before the writ court.
The writ court found that the inquiry report did not conclusively establish the charges and that the dismissal order lacked sufficient reasoning to justify such a harsh punishment. As a result, the court questioned the validity of the dismissal.
In its appeal to the High Court, the State of Jharkhand argued that 12 out of the 14 charges had been proven in the inquiry, thus supporting the dismissal.
However, the High Court observed that the dismissal order had been issued by the departmental secretary, who was also the appellate authority. This meant the employee denied his right to appeal, as the same official was responsible for both issuing the penalty and hearing appeals.
Taking this into consideration, the High Court upheld the writ court’s decision and refused to reinstate the dismissal order.
Unhappy with the outcome, the State approached the Supreme Court, which has now rejected the appeal and imposed costs on the State.