Read Time: 09 minutes
In our view, what assumes importance is that the decision of the High Court came in the year 2022 when already 38 years had passed from the year in which those riots occurred, Court said.
The Supreme Court has on April 23, 2025 set aside the Delhi High Court order allowing the Disciplinary Authority to consider afresh upon the action against a Delhi police officer, for alleged dereliction of duty or negligence during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
The court held that it would be too harsh upon him to undergo a fresh exercise of disagreement note and consequential process, particularly when the incident is over 40 years old and he has demitted office long time back.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra allowed an appeal filed by Durga Prasad, the then SHO of Kingsway Camp police station which saw a large scale of rioting after assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The appellant was aggrieved against the High Court's order giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh disagreement note, and proceed accordingly.
The apex court confirmed the High Court's order which quashed punishment of demotion from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police to Inspector till his retirement on March 31, 2004.
In its decision, the bench said, "In our view, what assumes importance is that the decision of the High Court came in the year 2022 when already 38 years had passed from the year in which those riots occurred. In between, the appellant retired from service and is now aged about 80 years."
The court further stated that it was aware of the law, which states that when an inquiry is found to be inadequate, whether procedurally or otherwise, the High Court should remand the matter to the relevant authority so that the exercise can be redone from the point at which the error occurred. However, it is equally established that in cases where there is a significant delay or where a remand at that point would be unjust, harsh, or otherwise unnecessary, the High Court may use its discretion and issue appropriate orders as required by the facts and circumstances of the case.
The bench found the inquiry report indicated that it was not a case where there was inaction on the part of the appellant in controlling the riots. Arrests were made, lathi-charge was done and firing was resorted to, though not to injure. Considering the limited force available, focus was on saving crucial installations and potential targets.
The court also noted that the immediate senior of the appellant D L Kashyap, who appeared as a defence witness, stated that the appellant did a commendable job with the limited resources available with him. Importantly, this witness was also part of the team responsible for controlling riots but was not charge-sheeted. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer relied on his statement. Most importantly, there was no evidence to show that the force was sitting idle.
Brief Background
The appellant, a Delhi police officer filed an appeal against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court of Delhi passed on September 12, 2022 by which, though the writ petition of the appellant against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was allowed, liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement to the appellant, within a period of four weeks and pass appropriate orders after considering the response.
The appellant was posted as Inspector of Police i.e. Station House Officer at Police Station Kingsway Camp, North District. Post assassination of then Prime Minister Smt Indira Gandhi, “Anti-Sikh Riots” broke out.
A charge memo was issued to him on August 20, 1992, inter alia, charging him for dereliction of duty or negligence in controlling those riots in the area under his command.
In 1999, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the appellant of the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and ordered a de-novo inquiry.
The Disciplinary Authority, by an order of December 28, 2001, imposed a penalty of reduction in rank upon the appellant, demoting him to the post of Inspector from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, till retirement (i.e., till March 31, 2004).
The appellant challenged the order of punishment before CAT which dismissed his plea on January 29, 2002.
He thereby approached the High Court, which set aside the punishment but granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh.
Case Title: Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Please Login or Register
