LexPUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. PATIALA & ORS. versus ATMA SINGH GREWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 155
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. PATIALA
& ORS.
v.
ATMA SINGH GREWAL
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29589 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]
GOVERNMENT LITIGATION:
Frivous and vexatious litigation by State Power
A
B
c
Corporation ...; Division Bench of High Court imposing cost on
appellant-Corporation to be recovered from the Officer who
authorised filing of appeal - Held: Since appeal preferred by
Corporation was totally frivolous, High Court has rightly 0
awarded the cost - In spite of Governmenfs_ QVillJ!Olicy and
reprimand from Supreme Court on numerous occasions,
there is no significant positive effect on various Government
officials who continue to take decision to file frivolous and
vexatious appeals - It imposes unnecessary burden on
courts-The opposite party which has succeeded in the court
E
below is also made to incur avoidable expenditure - Further,
it causes delay in. allowing the successful litigant to reap the
fruits of the judgment rendered by the court below -
Imposition of cost on State!PSUs alone is not going to make
much difference, as officers taking such irresponsible
F
decisions to file appeals are not personally affected because
cost, if imposed, comes from government's coffers - Time
has, therefore, come to take next step, viz., recovery of cost
from such officers who take such frivolous decisions of filing
appeals even after knowing well that these are totally G
vexatious and uncalled for appeals - It is clarified that such
an order of recovery of cost from officer concerned be passed
only in those cases where appeal is found to be ex-facie
155
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 10 S.C.R.
A frivolous and the decision to file appeal is also found to be
palpably irrational and uncalled for -
Punjab Civil Service
Rules -
r. 2.2(B), second proviso - Costs -
National
Litigation Policy, 2010 of Government of India.
B
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
Frivolous litigation -
By State/its instrumentality - Cost
to be recovered from Officer(s) who authorise filing of such
litigation.
c
Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani 2012 (8) SCR 225 =
(2012) 8 SCC 781; Mundrika Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar
1980 (1) SCR 759 = 1979 (4) SCC 701; Urban Improvement
Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal 2009 (15) SCR 550 = 2010 (1)
SCC 512; Rameshwari Devi and Ors. vs. Nirmala Devi and
D Ors. 2011 (8) SCR 992 = (2011) 8 SCC 249 - referred to.
E
F
126th Report (1988) of the Law Commission of India;
54th Report (1973) of Law Commission of India; and National
Litigation Policy, 2010 formulated by Central Government
.
.
.
Case Law Reference:
2012 (8) SCR 225
1980 (1) SCR 759
2009 (15) SCR 550
2011 (8) SCR 992
referred to
referred to
referred to
referred to
para 7
Para 8
para 13
para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
29589 of 2009.
G
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.08.2009 of the High
H
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 752 of
2009 (O&M).
Harinder Mohan Singh for the Petitioners.
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. .
157
PATIALA v. ATMA SINGH GREWAL
('>.. Venayagam Balan for the Respondent.
A
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
1. Petitioner No. 1 is the Punjab State Electricity Board
B
(PSEB); Petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Engineer, HRD-cum-
lnquiry Officer and Petitioner No. 3 is the Senior Executive
Engineer working in PSEB. Respondent was the employee of
PSEB who retired from service, with effect from 30.4.2004. He
·had given the notice on 27.2.2004 for voluntary retirement which
C
was accepted. As a result, the respondent stood voluntary
retired from 30.4.2004. However, almost 4 years· after his
retirement i.e. on 7.1.2008, the respondent was served with the
charge sheet levelling certain allegations against him, allegedly
committed between 15.5.2002 to 3.12.2002. These charges o
which. were for the period May 2002 to. December 2002 were
obviously of a period much earlier than 4 years before the
serving of the charge sheet dated 7.1.2008 and much after his
retirement when he had ceased to be the employee of PSEB.
2. The Respondent filed the Writ Petition in the High Court
E
seeking quashing of the said charge sheet on the ground that
it was barred in view of Rule 2.2.(B) of the Punjab Civil Service
Rules 2 reserves right with the Government to withhold or
withdraw a pension or a part of it under certain circumstances
vizExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.