JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is a strange case wherein State of U.P. Its and authorities have filed this writ petition having failed in their misdeed of not allowing applicant-respondent No. 1-Munney Lal to discharge his duties on the post on which he was appointed i.e. Collection Amin. 2. Record shows that claimant-respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on 15th December, 1964 and after attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 1990, retired from service. During this period, he was dismissed from service several times and every time order of dismissal was found illegal and set aside by Superior Authority. Last order of dismissal passed on 25.2.1984 was set aside by State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) vide judgment dated 25th January, 1990 in Claim Petition No. 13(1)1985. 3. The result is that claimant-respondent No. 1 was never allowed to function on the post for almost 17 years and ultimately petitioner authorities succeeded in making him retire without discharging his duties. No action was taken by State Government against any erring officer who repeatedly passed illegal orders which did not sustain scrutiny on judicial side and every time the same were set aside. 4. Harassment of claimant-respondent did not stop here, inasmuch as, after retirement claimant-respondents sought consequential benefits which were allowed by Tribunal vide order dated 25th January, 1990. Claimant-respondent also claimed that he is entitled to selection grade but the same has been rejected by order dated 19th October, 2006 on the ground that claimant-respondent did not render satisfactory service though admittedly he was never allowed to render effective service from 1973 and onward. 5. So far as selection grade w.e.f. 1st July, 1982 and promotional scale w.e.f. 1.7.1988 are concerned there is no adverse material available with petitioner to show that respondent’s services were not satisfactory, since he was not in active service. It is thus evident that aforesaid order was passed by petitioner authorities without applying any application of mind and founded on no material, adverse to the alleged effective working of claimant-respondent. It was for this reasons that Tribunal set aside even this order by means of impugned order dated 10th November, 2008, passed in Claim Petition No. 1395 of 2006 which has challenged before us. 6. It was for this reasons that Tribunal set aside even this order by means of impugned order dated 10th November, 2008, passed in Claim Petition No. 1395 of 2006 which has challenged before us. 6. First ground argued by learned Standing Counsel is that claim petition was filed after 16 years inasmuch as claimant-respondents retired in the year 1990 and after 16 years, he claimed selection grade which was due since 1stJuly, 1982. Submission is thoroughly misconceived and is not appealing. Petitioner was dismissed from service 29.2.1984 and order of dismissal was set aside by Tribunal by judgment dated 25th January, 1990. Thereafter claimant-respondents prayed for grant of all his dues since Tribunal allowed all consequential benefits. Petitioner authorities themselves took almost 16 years in passing order dated 19th October, 2006 denying claim of claimant-respondent and, hence, filing of claim petition before Tribunal immediately thereafter, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 7. It is further submitted that the services of claimant-respondent were not satisfactory, but when questioned even before this Court, no adverse material could be placed against claimant-respondent to show that view taken by petitioner authorities that claimant-respondent was not entitled to selection grade was based on any cogent material. 8. This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and, in fact the petitioner ought to have taken strict action against officers’ concerned who repeatedly passed illegal order, against claimant-respondent which could not face judicial scrutiny and ultimately failed. Harassment of claimant-respondent at the hands of petitioner authorities is very unfortunate. 9. In our system, the Constitution is supreme, but the real power vest in the people of India. The Constitution has been enacted “for the people, by the people and of the people”. A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee. 10. Regarding harassment of a common man, referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and others, 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, JT 1993 (6) SC 307, held as under: “An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law....... That is provided by the rule of law....... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it ........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.” (para 10) 11. The above observations as such have been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, JT 2004 (5) SC 17. 12. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or inaction may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this Court that the Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this Court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law. 13. In Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 530 , the Apex Court said: “No public servant can say “you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you cannot hold me personally liable” No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary”. 14. In Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 558 , the Apex Court has held: “An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit.” 15. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another, AIR 1996 SC 715 , has held as follows: “A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another, AIR 1996 SC 715 , has held as follows: “A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.” 16. The discussion made above makes it clear that respondent -1 has been harassed to the extreme and there has been no accountability on the part of any of authorities of petitioners and still this unmindful litigation is being pursued on behalf of petitioners. Present writ petition is nothing but a glaring example of frivolous petition on the part of State of U.P. and its Authorities justifying exemplary cost, inasmuch as, unmindful of the fact that Courts are already burdened with a huge number of cases, if such frivolous cases are encouraged and that too, on behalf of State Government and its Authorities, it will be very difficult to cater substantial need of people at large by imparting justice expeditiously. As we have already discussed above, findings recorded by Tribunal do not suffer any error apparent on the face of record still the matter has been dragged in this litigation by State Government so as to continue litigation and adding to agony of respondent-1 who has already suffered a lot. 17. We do not find any error apparent on the face of record in impugned judgment passed by Tribunal. 18. In result, writ petition is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 25,000/-.