https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/govt-servant-not-expected-to-take-stand-against-govt-supreme-court-quashes-rs-25-lakh-penalty-on-officer-who-exectued-govt-order-534511 [18/05, 10:15] Meta AI: *’Govt Servant Not Expected To Take Stand Against Govt’: SC Quashes ₹25 Lakh Penalty On Officer* _Supreme Court | Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice R. Mahadevan | May 2026_

[18/05, 10:15] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/govt-servant-not-expected-to-take-stand-against-govt-supreme-court-quashes-rs-25-lakh-penalty-on-officer-who-exectued-govt-order-534511
[18/05, 10:15] Meta AI: *’Govt Servant Not Expected To Take Stand Against Govt’: SC Quashes ₹25 Lakh Penalty On Officer*
_Supreme Court | Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice R. Mahadevan | May 2026_

*1. Case background*
*Officer*: Former Director of Collegiate Education, Tamil Nadu

*Issue*: He refused to approve recruitment beyond _11 Group-D posts_ in a private women’s college, citing _GO No. 219 dated 24.10.2013_ which restricted recruitment.

*High Court action*: Madras HC blamed authorities for _delayed salary payments_ to some employees. Imposed total cost of _₹50 lakh_ –
1. _₹25 lakh on State of TN_
2. _₹25 lakh to be recovered personally from the officer_

*2. Supreme Court ruling*
*Penalty quashed*: SC set aside the ₹25 lakh personal cost on the officer.

*Key observation*:
> _“We are constrained to observe that the High Court should have been conscious of the fact that a government servant cannot be made to take a stand against the Government… A government employee cannot be saddled with personal liability merely for acting in accordance with a government order that was operative at the relevant time.”_

*Facts noted*:
1. Officer acted as per _operative GO No. 219 of 2013_.
2. He declined approval _only because recruitment beyond 11 posts was not permitted at the time_.
3. SC _“expressed surprise over the Government of Tamil Nadu’s silence”_ over penalty imposed on its employee for implementing its own order.

*3. Legal principle laid down*
1. *No personal liability for following GO*: Govt servant bound to act per _prevailing government policy_. Can’t be expected to defy govt.
2. *Govt’s responsibility*: If GO was wrong, State should face consequences, not individual officer executing it.
3. *Access to justice*: Follows CJI Surya Kant’s May 16 statement – _“Judges can be on vacation, courts should not be on vacation. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes.”_

*4. Context: SC’s recent trend on govt litigation*
1. *Apr 2026*: SC imposed _₹25,000 cost on Centre_ for _“unnecessary litigation”_ challenging HC order that set aside CISF official’s dismissal. Justice Nagarathna: _“Who is the biggest litigant? Cost should be imposed… Government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation.”_
2. *Penalty vs Prosecution*: In tax cases, SC held _penalty proceedings and prosecution are separate_. But _“wilful default”_ must be proved for criminal liability.

*Bottom line*: If you’re a govt officer implementing a valid govt order, you can’t be fined personally later just because the order/policy is challenged. Fix accountability with the govt, not the individual babu following rules.

Want the full GO No. 219/2013 text or details on other recent SC cases where personal costs on officers were set aside?