Decades-Long Disciplinary Saga Concludes: Supreme Court Overturns Remand in 1984 Riots Case.


23 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a significant ruling of Durga Prasad v/s Govt. of Nct of Delhi & Others., dated April 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted leave in the Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2111 of 2023) of Durga Prasad v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others, bringing an end to a protracted disciplinary proceeding against a former police officer that spanned over four decades. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, with Justice Misra authoring the judgment, set aside the Delhi High Court's decision to allow a fresh note of disagreement against the appellant, citing the substantial delay and the appellant's advanced age.

The case originated from the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, during which the appellant, Durga Prasad, was serving as an Inspector of Police (Station House Officer) at Police Station Kingsway Camp, North District, Delhi. In May 1985, Prasad was promoted to Assistant Commissioner of Police, based on his service record. However, in 1992, a charge memo was issued against him for alleged dereliction of duty and negligence in controlling the riots, following a committee's preliminary report on the police's failure to effectively tackle the riots.

 
 

An inquiry officer exonerated Prasad in 1999. The Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with this finding, initially ordered a de novo inquiry, which the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) later quashed, stating that only a "further enquiry" could be ordered. CAT, however, granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to issue fresh orders disagreeing with the inquiry officer's findings after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Subsequently, in January 2001, a disagreement note was issued, leading to an order in December 2001 that imposed a penalty of reduction in rank upon Prasad until his retirement in March 2004. Prasad challenged this order before CAT, but his application was dismissed. He then approached the Delhi High Court, which, in September 2022, allowed his writ petition and set aside both the CAT order and the disciplinary authority's punishment order. Crucially, the High Court granted the Disciplinary Authority "liberty to issue a fresh note of disagreement".

The High Court found fault with the initial disagreement note, deeming it an expression of opinion that the officer was guilty rather than a true note of dissent, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Union government did not challenge the High Court's decision to quash the punishment order. The appellant, however, challenged the High Court's decision to permit a fresh start to the disciplinary process, arguing that after 38 years since the incidents and his retirement at age 80, the matter should be closed.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the general principle of remanding matters for correction of procedural deficiencies, highlighted an exception for cases with a "long time-lag" where a remand would be "unfair, or harsh, or otherwise unnecessary". The Court observed that the inquiry officer's report was detailed and found the charges unproven after considering various pieces of evidence. This included the lack of evidence for situations requiring lathi-charge, tear gas, or firing that were not acted upon, and the acknowledgment that mere violent incidents or deaths in an officer's jurisdiction do not automatically prove incompetence without establishing adequate resources were available and wilfully misused.

The Inquiry Officer's report also noted that the presenting officer failed to demonstrate timely provision of additional force or information for preventive action. Furthermore, the report documented the appellant's efforts to control the situation with available force, including protecting prominent individuals and installations, and the testimony of his immediate superior, who commended his work. The report also highlighted that 106 arrests were made and 53 rounds were fired to disperse crowds, not to injure, and that the appellant had no tear gas at his disposal.

In contrast, the Supreme Court found the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement note "cryptic" and noted its failure to consider vital aspects of the inquiry report, such as the limited force available, the focus on critical installations, and the commendation from the appellant's senior. The Court also addressed specific points raised in the disagreement note, finding them unsubstantiated or based on unwarranted inferences.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that subjecting the appellant to a fresh disciplinary exercise would be "too harsh," considering the incident is over 40 years old and the appellant has long since retired. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to quash the punishment order but set aside the liberty granted for a fresh disagreement note, thereby allowing the appellant to receive all consequential benefits, including revision of pension.