New Delhi, April 2 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised the Centre for continuing a pattern of relentless litigation and burdening the top court with avoidable appeals. A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000 on the Centre for challenging a Punjab and Haryana high court judgment reinstating a CISF constable. "We fail to understand why the Union of India and others have approached this court by assailing the order of the division bench of the high court," observed the bench. During the hearing, justice Nagarathna delivered a pointed rebuke, stressing that the Centre, while expressing concern over judicial pendency, is the largest contributor to the backlog. "This is a case for imposing costs with dismissal. We have been shouting. Keep aside your argument. Pendency, pendency; who is the biggest litigant?" she said, echoing concerns she raised at the recent Supreme Court Bar Association's national conference. At the conference, Justice Nagarathna had described the government as playing a "dual role"- as both the provider of judicial infrastructure and the "largest generator of litigation." She had warned that the state's tendency to pursue appeals as a matter of routine, rather than restraint, was a key structural driver of judicial congestion. On Tuesday, the bench stressed the urgent need for an internal filtration mechanism within the government's litigation machinery. The judge's remarks reflected an institutional concern she had articulated earlier that government officers are often incentivised to file appeals out of caution. While settling disputes may invite audit or vigilance scrutiny, pursuing litigation is seen as a safer bureaucratic choice, leading to a cycle where "appeals become routine rather than rare." It concerned a CISF constable who was dismissed from service after about ten years on two charges: unauthorised absence from duty for 11 days, and alleged misconduct relating to facilitating the elopement of a fellow constable's daughter, who later married his younger brother. The constable's absence occurred during a period of sanctioned medical leave, though he was not found present during an inspection. On the second charge, the woman in question appeared during disciplinary proceedings and stated she had no grievance. It was also undisputed that she had voluntarily married the constable's brother. A single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the dismissal, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service. The division bench upheld this decision. Despite these concurrent findings, the Union approached the Supreme Court. The counsel for the Union attempted to limit the relief by arguing against the grant of back wages, invoking the principle of "no work, no pay" and pointing out that the matter had remained pending before the high court for six years. However, the court was not persuaded....