The Supreme Court on Wednesday imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Centre for challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had set aside the dismissal of a CISF official, observing that the matter involved unnecessary litigation.Upholding the high court’s ruling, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan also directed that the official be granted back wages, holding that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.“We fail to understand why the Union of India has challenged the order of the high court division bench. We hear pendency, pendency. Who is the biggest litigant? Cost should be imposed,” said Justice Nagarathna, as cited by PTI.“Why can’t there be an opinion that if the high court found it disproportionate and granted relief setting aside all the orders, we shall not go to the Supreme Court? He took medical leave but he also had to deal with an elopement in his family,” she added. Referring to her recent remarks at a conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Nagarathna said the court had taken the observations regarding the government’s role in the backlog of cases very seriously.“It was not just to go to some resort and come back. We made preparations, we did homework. We spoke. Not to forget,” she said.Two charges were levelled against the CISF official, absence from duty for 11 days and alleged indiscipline for purportedly conniving with a woman, the daughter of a CISF constable, to leave Mumbai and attend her wedding with his younger brother.The high court, however, noted that the 11-day absence had been explained, as the official 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 grievance against the respondent-petitioner regarding the allegation that she had run away with his brother.“It is otherwise not in dispute that the brother of the respondent-petitioner had married the lady concerned. It has, therefore, been found that in-fact there was no misconduct on the part of the respondent for which he could be removed from service,” said the High Court.