Allahabad HC imposes Rs 15 lakh fine on assistant professor for ‘frivolous’ case against colleagues

In separate orders addressing the three petitions, the court quashed the court proceedings and imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh each on the assistant professor.

“Because of the filing of frivolous cases, the reputation and public image of the applicant and his colleagues, who are professors and people with high morals and reputation, had been tarnished. They had to run from pillar to post, from police station to court to save themselves. Evidently, this was false and frivolous case filed against the applicant only to wreak personal vengeance. Such kind of vexatious proceedings should not be allowed to continue and if anybody engages in doing so, such activities have to be curbed down,” Justice Pramod Kumar said in the order.

“This is a perfect case where exemplary cost should be imposed on the complainant/O.P. no.2. The loss of reputation, public image and the financial loss caused to the applicant are far much more, but as a token a cost of Rs.5 lacs is imposed on O.P. no.2 for abusing the process of law by filing frivolous cases only for personal vengeance and personal gains. This amount should be given to the applicant forthwith after making deduction from the salary of O.P. no.2 as well as other benefits given by her employer,” Justice Kumar added.

The court further said, “In this case, there is pure abuse of process of law where the complainant, just to wreak the personal vengeance against the head of department, had tried to implicate him and his colleagues by filing false and frivolous cases. Whenever the seniors/head of department/professors asked her to teach properly and to take classes regularly, she would file a complaint against them. This is not one of the first case which happened. The complainant, who is a well educated lady, knows the provisions of law very well and she had been abusing the provisions of law for personal gain. The complaint filed by the complainant was nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.”

The court also observed, “If such kind of activities are not nipped in the bud, it will set a precedent where other members of the S.C. or the S.T. community will open start insubordination and the head of department will not be in a position to do anything, and if any warning is given to them; cases under the S.C./S.T. Act will be foisted against them.”

The court then quashed the court proceedings in the case.