New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it is fed up with the “frivolous petitions” filed by various state governments and public sector undertakings despite repeated warnings.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said merely because officers of the state governments or public sector undertakings (PSUs) do not have to bear the cost of litigation personally, the court is burdened with such frivolous matters.
“We are fed up with such frivolous special leave petition(s) filed by various state governments and public undertakings,” the bench said after it got annoyed over an appeal moved by the Jharkhand government in the case of a government employee who has challenged his dismissal from service.
“We have been telling this for the past six months. It is enough,” the bench said and added that in spite of warnings, the counsel appearing for various state governments and public undertakings have not shown any intention to refrain from filing such frivolous petitions.
“We continue to observe a lack of improvement in the attitude of the state governments and public undertakings(s) regarding the issue,” the bench recorded in its order. It dismissed the Jharkhand government’s appeal and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on it, to be paid within four weeks from the date of the order.
“The cost of Rs 50,000 shall be deposited in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), to be used for the purpose of library, and the cost of Rs 50,000 shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) advocates’ welfare fund,” the bench said.
It further said the state governments and PSUs would be at liberty to conduct an inquiry to identify which officers were responsible for filing such ill-advised petitions and may also seek to recover the cost from them.
The Jharkhand government had challenged the state high court’s order directing it to reinstate the services of one Rabindra Gope.
Gope faced a departmental enquiry for alleged indiscipline, dereliction of duty and not following his superiors’ directions, for which 14 different charges were framed. He was dismissed from service by an order dated August 2, 2011.
The high court had not agreed with the order for Gope’s dismissal and reinstated him in service.
Aggrieved by the decision, the state government had challenged it in the apex court.
