The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Center challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which had set aside the dismissal of a CISF officer, saying the matter involved unnecessary litigation.Upholding the High Court judgment, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan also directed that the officer be paid his outstanding salary, holding that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.Justice Nagarathna was quoted by PTI as saying, “We fail to understand why the Union of India has challenged the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. We hear the pending cases. Who is the biggest litigant? Fine should be imposed.”He said, “Why can’t there be a view that if the High Court finds it inconsistent and grants relief by setting aside all the orders, we will not go to the Supreme Court? He took medical leave but he also faced the threat of fleeing with his family.” Referring to his recent comments at a conference organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Nagarathna said the court has taken the comments regarding the role of the government in pending cases very seriously.“It wasn’t just going to some resort and coming back. We prepared, we did the homework. We talked. Don’t forget,” he said.Two charges were filed against the CISF officer, being absent from duty for 11 days and indiscipline for allegedly leaving Mumbai with a woman, the daughter of a CISF constable, and attending her wedding with his younger brother.However, the High Court held that the 11-day absence was justified as the officer was on sanctioned medical leave during that period.Justice Nagarathna noted that during the disciplinary proceedings, the woman involved had appeared and stated that she had no complaints against the respondent-petitioner in respect of the allegation that she had eloped with his brother.The High Court said, “Otherwise it is not in dispute that the brother of the respondent-petitioner was married to the woman in question. Therefore, it is found that there was in fact no misconduct on the part of the respondent for which he could be removed from service.”