The Supreme Court made it clear that more care is needed when officers are punished for not acting, rather than acting wrongly.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favour of a retired Delhi Police officer, Durga Prasad, who had faced disciplinary action for his alleged failure to act during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
The Court observed that starting disciplinary proceedings against him so many years later was unfair and legally unsustainable.
ALSO READ: 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots || Former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar Sentenced to Life Imprisonment
The verdict was delivered by a Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, who heard the case.
Durga Prasad was the Station House Officer (SHO) of Kingsway Camp in Delhi during the 1984 riots. Years later, he faced allegations of inaction, dereliction of duty, and failure to control the situation, including not making any preventive arrests or using sufficient police force to stop the rioters.
However, the disciplinary action against him was initiated eight years after the riots took place, by which time he had already been promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).
The Supreme Court made it clear that more care is needed when officers are punished for not acting, rather than acting wrongly.
The Court stated “No doubt, misconduct may arise out of an act or an omission. Where it relates to an alleged omission, greater caution is required before putting an officer in the dock. In case of such nature, the disciplinary authority may also have to empathise with the situation in which the charged officer was placed at the relevant time.”
The judges also pointed out the difficulty of judging actions taken during a crisis with the benefit of hindsight:
“Because in hindsight it is easy to say that things could have been handled better if they had been done this way, or that way. But if this alone is taken as a basis to punish police personnel who, though may not have delivered the desired result, have done their best, commensurate to the resources available to them at the relevant time, grave injustice would be done. Instant case appears to be of that kind.”
An initial inquiry had cleared Prasad of wrongdoing. But the disciplinary authority refused to accept this and ordered a fresh inquiry. This second inquiry was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Despite the CAT’s decision, the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note and, after reviewing Prasad’s reply, punished him by reducing his rank from ACP to Inspector until retirement.
Prasad challenged this punishment before the CAT again, which dismissed his plea. He then moved to the Delhi High Court, where a Division Bench quashed the order reducing his rank, but allowed the authority to issue a fresh disagreement note.
The Supreme Court overruled this part of the Delhi High Court’s decision. It said that issuing a fresh disagreement note after four decades was not justified. The Court agreed with the part of the High Court order that had cancelled the rank reduction, but it stopped the authorities from reopening the issue again.
The Court clearly said:
“For all the reasons above, we are of the considered view that it would be too harsh upon the appellant to undergo a fresh exercise of disagreement note and consequential process, particularly when the incident is over 40 years old and the appellant has demitted office long time back.”
With these remarks, the Supreme Court allowed Durga Prasad’s appeal and closed the case in his favour.
[Case Title: Durga Prasad v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors].
