Durga Prasad vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 548
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.2111/2023)

DURGA PRASAD …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of
1
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated
12.09.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No.1085/2002 by
which, though the writ petition of the appellant
against the order of the Central Administrative
2
Tribunal in O.A. No. 232/2002 was allowed, liberty
was given to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh
note of disagreement to the appellant, within a period
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JAGDISH KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.23
16:08:55 IST
Reason:

1
The High Court
2
CAT
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 1 of 39

of four weeks, and pass appropriate orders after
considering the response.
Background Facts
3.
This case has a checkered history. The appellant
at the relevant time (i.e. 1984) was posted as Inspector
3
of Police (i.e., Station House Officer ) at Police Station
Kingsway Camp, North District, Delhi. During that
period, post assassination of the then Prime Minister
4
Smt. Indira Gandhi, “Anti-Sikh Riots ” broke out. In
May 1985, the appellant was promoted to the post of
Assistant Commissioner of Police, inter alia , on
appraisal of service record. Later, a Committee was
constituted to look into the failure of the police in
effectively tackling the 1984 riots. In its preliminary
report, the Committee castigated certain police
officers for their failure in controlling the riots. Based
on that, charge memo was issued to the appellant on
20.08.1992, inter alia , charging him for dereliction of
duty/ negligence in controlling those riots in the area
under his command. In the ensuing inquiry,
vide

3
SHO
4
1984 riots
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 2 of 39

report dated 28.01.1999, 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 vide
office order dated 07.10.1999.
4. Aggrieved by direction for a de novo inquiry, the
5
appellant filed Original Application No.1841/2000
before Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi. CAT
allowed the said O.A. vide order dated 27.09.2000.
The operative portion of the order is extracted below:
“6…We find that the disciplinary authority is …
not justified in ordering a de novo enquiry. If one
has regard to the …..rule 15 ….., all that he could
have ordered was a further enquiry and not a de
novo enquiry. In the circumstances, the
impugned order passed by the disciplinary
authority on 06.08.1999…is quashed and set
aside.
7. Consequent upon the aforesaid order of the
disciplinary authority of 06.08.1999, a
corrigendum has been issued by the disciplinary
authority on 07.10.1999…, whereby, an
amended charge has been framed. Since the
order of the disciplinary authority of 06.08.1999
is set aside, aforesaid consequential
corrigendum of 07.10.1999 is also quashed and
set aside.
8. In view of the aforesaid order, we find that it
would be open to the disciplinary authority, if he
is so advised, to issue fresh orders disagreeing
with the findings of the enquiry officer, but this
he can do only after issue of a notice and after
affording applicant a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. Thereafter, in case he is inclined to

5
O.A.
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 3 of 39

issue a direction for a fresh enquiry, the same
would not be a de novo enquiry in the matter.
9. Present OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
No order as to costs.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of CAT, on
04.01.2001 the Disciplinary Authority issued a
disagreement note calling upon the appellant to
submit his representation within 15 days of its
receipt. The Inquiry Report was supplied later vide
letter dated 18.01.2001.
6. After getting response from the appellant, the
Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 28.12.2001,
imposed a penalty of reduction in rank upon the
appellant thereby demoting him to the post of
Inspector from the post of Assistant Commissioner of
Police, till retirement (i.e., till 31.03.2004).
7. The appellant challenged the order of punishment
before CAT through O.A. No.232/2002, which was
dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2002.
8. Aggrieved by CAT’s order dated 29.01.2002, the
appellant filed writ petition (i.e., W.P. (C)
No.1085/2002) before the High Court, which was
allowed in the following terms:
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 4 of 39

“14. … This court is of the opinion that the order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as
well as the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority are liable to be set aside. The
Disciplinary Authority is, therefore, granted the
liberty to issue a fresh note of disagreement to
the petitioner within a period of four weeks, and
the petitioner is also granted 4 weeks’ time to file
a response to the note of disagreement.
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority shall be at
liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
15. This court has been informed that the
petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation and, therefore, the competent
Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to pass
the appropriate orders of punishment, keeping
in view the date of retirement and the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
16. The petition is disposed of with the above
observations. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.”

9. The High Court found fault with the so-called
disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary
Authority before passing the punishment order. In the
view of the High Court the disagreement note was not
a note of dissent but an expression of opinion that the
charged officer is guilty. Thus, in the view of the High
Court, the Disciplinary Authority had pre-judged the
matter and, therefore, the show cause notice was
rendered nugatory, akin to a post decisional hearing,
which violated the principles of natural justice as also
the extant service rules.
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 5 of 39

10. Importantly, the correctness of the order of the
High Court to the extent it set aside the order of
punishment has not been questioned by the Govt. (i.e.
the Disciplinary Authority). It is the appellant alone
who has impugned the order of the High Court to the
extent it grants liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to
proceed afresh from the stage where the mistake crept
in.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the materials on record.
Submissions of the Appellant
12. The appellant contends that charges relate to
the year 1984; inquiry was initiated in 1992; inquiry
report was submitted in 1999; de novo inquiry
directed by the Disciplinary Authority was set aside;
punishment order was passed in 2001; the writ
petition was filed in the year 2002 whereas the matter
came up for final hearing in the year 2022; and, in
between the appellant retired, therefore, once the
order of punishment was found bad in law, the matter
should have been closed with no liberty to the
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 6 of 39

Disciplinary Authority. Otherwise, it would be nothing
but persecution of the appellant on a charge which
was found not proved by the Inquiry Officer. In
anyway liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law would be an
exercise in futility as the Disciplinary Authority has
already disclosed its intent to punish the appellant. It
was thus prayed on behalf of the appellant that this
Court may look into the matter, satisfy itself as to
whether there is any good reason to differ with the
findings returned in the inquiry report and pass
appropriate orders.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent
13. On behalf of respondent it was submitted that
though respondents have not challenged the order of
the High Court, the facts disclosed in the
disagreement note would indicate that there were
good and cogent reasons to differ with the findings of
the Inquiry Officer as from the materials on record
charges were duly proved. However, since the High
Court found fault with the disagreement note, fresh
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 7 of 39

steps would be taken and there is no question of bias
as by now there would be a fresh set of officers.
Hence, on behalf of the respondents, it was prayed
that the appeal may be dismissed.
Analysis/ Discussion
14. Having taken note of the background facts as
well as the rival submissions, in our view, the only
question that arises for our consideration is whether,
in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have
given liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to correct
its mistake. If not, then what would be the appropriate
relief to the appellant.
15. In that context, we have carefully perused the
materials on record. A perusal of the record would
reveal that the charges are in respect of failure to
control the 1984 riots in the area under the command
of the appellant. At the relevant time, the appellant
was in the rank of an Inspector. Later, he was
promoted to the post of an Assistant Commissioner of
Police, which he held when the charge-sheet was
served upon him in the year 1992. Notably, the
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 8 of 39

appellant was exonerated of the charges by the
Inquiry Officer. Initially, disagreeing with the inquiry
report, the Disciplinary Authority directed for a de
novo inquiry, which CAT found unjustified. However,
CAT gave liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to issue
a disagreement note and proceed. Instead of issuing a
disagreement note simpliciter, the Disciplinary
Authority issued a notice along with a note expressing
his opinion that appellant is guilty and, thereafter,
proceeded to impose punishment of reduction in rank.
The High Court found fault with the procedure and
held that the show cause notice was just an eye wash
as the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its
mind to punish the appellant. Consequently, the High
Court set aside the order of punishment and gave
liberty to issue a fresh note of disagreement and pass
consequential order in accordance with law.

16. The aforesaid decision of the High Court has
been questioned in this appeal to the extent it gave
liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed
further. The appellant claims that in the facts of the
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 9 of 39

case the writ petition should have been allowed in
terms prayed for, with full consequential benefits to
the appellant.
17.
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.
We are conscious of the law that ordinarily where
enquiry is found deficient, procedurally or otherwise,
High Court should remand the matter back to the
authority concerned for redoing the exercise from the
stage where the error crept in. However, it is equally
settled that where there is long time-lag or
circumstances are such that a remand at that stage
would be unfair, or harsh, or otherwise unnecessary,
the High Court can exercise its discretion and pass
suitable orders as the facts and circumstances of the
6
case may demand . At times, where enquiry is found
faulty, necessitating a remand, the Court may, on

6
See: Allahabad Bank & others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 (paragraph 8)
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 10 of 39

account of long delay, instead of remanding the
matter, mould the relief as was done by this Court in
7
the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India .
18.
In the instant case, admittedly, there was no
procedural lapse in conducting the inquiry by the
Inquiry Officer. No doubt, initially, the Disciplinary
Authority ordered for a de novo inquiry but that order
was set aside by CAT. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority issued a disagreement note and proceeded
to impose punishment upon the appellant. There can
be no cavil to the existence of power with the
Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the opinion of
the Inquiry Officer. But, in the event of disagreement,
he has to give brief reasons for his disagreement and
provide an opportunity to the employee to respond to
such disagreement note before forming its own
opinion with regard to imposition of punishment on
8
the delinquent . In the instant case, the note issued
by the Disciplinary Authority was more an expression

7
(2006) 5 SCC 88
8
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84; and Yoginath Bagde v. State of Maharashtra &
Another, (1999) 7 SCC 739
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 11 of 39

of opinion regarding the appellant being guilty than a
note of dissent with the findings returned by the
Inquiry Officer. The High Court, therefore, set aside
the order of punishment with liberty to the
Disciplinary authority to issue fresh disagreement
note.
19. In ordinary circumstances, the order of the
High Court giving such liberty to the Disciplinary
Authority may be justified. But here is a case of huge
delay as also appellant retiring in between. Moreover,
the Disciplinary Authority on its own did not impose
punishment of dismissal or removal from service upon
the appellant which might have resulted in forfeiture
of pension. No doubt, a punishment of reduction in
rank, as was imposed, might also have a bearing on
the quantum of pension payable to a retired employee
but its consequences would be much less severe. In
that light, and by taking into account the advanced
age of the appellant, we propose to examine whether
it is a fit case to put a quietus to the proceeding.
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 12 of 39

20. For that end, we propose to carefully examine
the findings in the inquiry report as well as the dissent
note issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry
Officer’s report, dated 28.01.1999, exonerating the
appellant of the charges is on record as a part of
Annexure P-6. The same is reproduced below:
“Inquiry Officer’s Report in case of Sri Durga
Prasad Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Charged Officer
Sri Durga Prasad, Assistant Commissioner of
Police (referred to as C.O hereinafter) is being
proceeded against Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 (vide Directorate of Vigilance
Memorandum No. F7(9)/92-DOV /1017 dated
20.3.1992 for his alleged lapses in handling law
and order situation which prevailed in Delhi in
the wake of the assassination of the Prime
Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31.10.1984. The
C.O. gave his written reply to the Articles of
Charges on 20.8.1992 and this inquiry was
referred to the undersigned vide Vigilance
Department order No. F7(9)/92 /DOV/4297
dated 13.8.1998. By an order of the same date,
Sri Puli Chand, Sales Tax Officer was appointed
the Presenting Officer in this case.
In annexure IV to the Charge Memorandum,
seven witnesses were those who had filed
affidavits in connection with the Nov. ‘84 riots
before Inquiry Commission set up in this matter.
None of them appeared before this inquiry in
spite of summons. It was learnt that Sri Piara
Singh, Sri Rajinder Pal Singh, Jaimal Singh and
Sri Pritpal Singh were not reciting at the
addresses available with the Police Department.
Since their present whereabouts are not known
they could not be contacted. Two witnesses,
namely, Sri J.S. Uppal and Shri Satnam Singh
did not appear in spite of repeated summons and
they had to be dropped.
As a result, the Presenting Officer had to rely on
the documentary evidence like the radio log
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 13 of 39

book, curfew order etc., all of which have been
admitted by the C.O. Now I propose to deal with
each Article of Charge read with the imputations,
and the evidence available against each.

Charge No.1
That Shri Durga Prasad while functioning as
SHO, Kingsway Camp failed to utilize his staff
effectively and to take effective / preventive
measures to control the violence which started
in the wake of the assassination of Smt. Indira
Gandhi which resulted in heavy loss of life and
property during November 1984 riots. About 15
deaths occurred during riots in his area. No
preventive arrests were made either on
31.10.1984 or up to 4.11.1984 when the riots
were in full swing.

Statement of Imputations in support of
Article 1 of Charge
“Shri Durga Prasad, while functioning as SHO,
Kingsway Camp was supposed to be (sic) and
exercise overall supervision over the police
station under his control. The facts emerge from
the police records and affidavits that during Nov.
‘84 riots, Shri Durga Prasad failed to rise to the
occasion. No preventive measures were taken
when the riots were in full swing.”
On behalf of the disciplinary authority, radio
logbook of North District has been produced as
the evidence against the C.O. who has admitted
the radio logbook entries as correct (exhibit S4).
The Presenting Officer has, however, not been
able to prove the Daily Diary register of police
station Kingsway Camp as it was not made
available to him.
Similarly, he could not produce the radio logbook
of P.S. Kingsway Camp or the logbook of vehicles
of P.S. Kingsway Camp for the relevant period.
FIR Nos. 785, 786 and 789 all of which were cited
as documents to be relied on for proving the
charges against the C.O. as mentioned in
annexure III to the Charge Memo, have also not
been made available. In short, the only items of
documentary evidence produced to prove the
charges are the order under section 144 CrPC
(exhibit S1), curfew order (exhibit S 2), Deputy
Commissioner, Delhi’s report on the number of
deaths (exhibit S3) and radio logbook of North
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 14 of 39

District (exhibit S4). All of these documents were
readily admitted by the C.O. and he has been
able to make better use of them in his defense.
None of the documents mentioned above throw
any significant light on any laxity or lapses on
the part of the C.O. They do not mention any
occasions or locations where lathi-charge, tear
gas or firing was needed but was not resorted to.
There is nothing in these documents to show
that effective preventive measures were not
taken where the police was present. The
Presenting Officer has argued that in
departmental proceedings, preponderance of
probability, and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt as applicable in criminal cases, should be
seen while judging the culpability or otherwise of
the delinquent officer. But here is a case where
there is hardly any evidence to prove any of the
charges, let alone preponderance of probability.
Similarly, he argues that in departmental
proceedings the question of proof of documents
should not arise as most of the documents are
maintained officially and should be presumed to
be correct. If this argument was true, there
would be no need of any departmental
proceedings as the disciplinary authority which
awards punishment could have summoned all
these documents maintained officially then
taken decision on the basis of them. The
Presenting Officer has not appreciated time-
honored maxim of natural justice that no
evidence even in departmental proceedings can
be made use of unless it has passed through the
test of cross-examination by the C.O. The very
object of cross-examination is to question the
accuracy, credibility of the evidence adduced and
highlight the discrepancies therein. Where this
procedure has not been followed the evidentiary
value of witnesses or documents becomes zero.
A number of judicial pronouncements have
emphasized that cross examination is a very
valuable right, and prevention of its effective
exercise would be shared the proceedings.
The Presenting Officer has also argued that the
documentary evidence is to be considered more
important than the oral evidence as the
document does not lie or forget. Without
questioning the validity of this argument, it may
be observed that he has not been able to produce
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 15 of 39

any document which is relevant to prove the
charges regarding the lack of effective preventive
measures, gross negligence or dereliction of
duties with mala fide intention - the charges
which have been cited in Annexure II as the
constituents of misconduct in this case.
The Presenting Officer has further argued that
the burden of proof in certain cases lies on the
C.O as it is done in case of misappropriation etc.
In such cases, according to him, the onus of
disproving essential facts lies on the C.O. This
principle is not applicable in the present case for
the reason that a number of violent incidents or
deaths occurring in the jurisdiction of a police
officer do not, ipso facto, prove his incompetence,
negligence or dereliction of duty unless it is
established that he was given adequate men and
resources to tackle the law and order situation
and yet he willfully decided not to use them with
some ulterior motive. In the present case, there
is an abundance of evidence to show that the
C.O. exercised all due care and caution at his
command and made all possible efforts to control
the law and order situation in his jurisdiction.
The Presenting Officer’s case is that according to
the radio logbook entry dated 31.10.84 at 12.24
hours and 17.20 hours, C.O. was instructed to
mobilize maximum force in the area of P.S.
Kingsway Camp ensuring that no untoward
incident took place. He argues that in spite of
these instructions, C.O. failed to do this and his
failure resulted into incidents of looting, arson
and murder of many persons. In order to prove
this allegation, the P.O. had to show that
additional force was made available to the C.O.
in time and also that the C.O. had been informed
in time to take preventive action. None of these
points has been proved by any evidence. On the
other hand, the C.O. has stated in his defense
statement (placed on record on 30.10.98) that on
1.11.1984, he tried his level best with the help of
force available with him, to control the situation
and that special care was taken to protect the
residences of Sardar Richpal Singh, Nirankari
Baba and Ashwani Minna, proprietor of the
newspaper ‘Punjab Kesri’ - all prominent persons
residing in the area of Kingsway Camp. Similarly,
important installations like telephone exchange
and the radio station were also protected by his
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 16 of 39

force. In this connection, he has also given the
sequence of events (annexure II of his defense
statement) to show that he and his force made
all possible efforts to combat the deteriorating
situation during the riots. In the said annexure
he has mentioned that on 1.11.84 he had no
extra force except the meagre staff available at
the police station. At 8:30 AM he also requested
for the fire brigade. The fire brigade was not
made available to him. His force, however,
succeeded in stopping and disbursing a mob
coming from Shakti Nagar side. A small
additional force was made available to him
consisting of 18 persons of the CRPF at 10:25
a.m. on 1.11.84 who were deployed at
gurudwara Nanak Piau and the radio station. As
a result, these places were saved from any kind
of mischief or loss.
At about 11:00 AM, the C.O. received a message
that more than a thousand persons (Sikhs) had
gathered in Model Town making the situation
tense. He reached the spot and pacified the
crowd. Similarly, he tackled the law and order
situation at GT Karnal Rd. by dispersing the mob
assembled there and also at gurudwara
Parmanand colony and gurudwara Gujranwala
Town. He has also mentioned about a number of
bogus calls received by him, which distracted the
attention of force from the real troubled spots. In
this way, the C.O. has mentioned number of
incidents that took place at gurudwara
Mukherjee Nagar, along the GT Karnal Rd.,
gurudwara Dhirpur, gurdwara ‘D’ Block and a
few residential units at Gujranwala Town, Model
Town III, C.C. Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Nirankari Colony etc., which he and his force
tackled during the day. The Presenting Officer
has not been able to refute this portion of the
defense statement by any evidence or cogent
argument.
In annexure III (295/C) to this defense
statement, the C.O. mentioned that the strength
of his police station Kingsway Camp during the
riots consisted of one Inspector, 9 Sub-
Inspectors, 7 Assistant Sub-Inspectors, 18 Head
Constables and 75 Constables - a force which
was too inadequate to tackle hundreds of
incidents that occurred within a short span of 2-
3 days. The C.O. does admit 8 deaths that
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 17 of 39

occurred in his jurisdiction out of which six were
the Sikhs and two non-Sikhs.
The C.O. has also produced 6 defense witnesses
to prove his case. Sri DL Kashyap (DW1) was the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kingsway
Camp and the C.O.s immediate superior. He has
deposed that in the morning of 1.11.84, SHO
Durga Prasad (the C.O.) accompanied him to
Rana Pratap Bagh and they managed to disperse
the unruly mob by resorting to a vigorous lathi
charge. According to him, the C.O. did a good
work in the area of Model Town, where he also
rescued a Sikh family from the clutches of the
rioters and protected a number of prominent
Sikh leaders. He also ensured the safety and
security of gurudwara Model Town, another
sensitive and vulnerable place. In brief, he
emphasized that the C.O. remained alert,
vigilant and active throughout the period of riots
continued and that in his opinion ‘he spared no
efforts to combat the situation that arose in his
jurisdiction’. It may be mentioned that Shri
Kashyap (now Deputy Commissioner of Police)
was not accused, in any manner, in these riots
and got commendations from many quarters for
his good work. His testimony in favor of the C.O.
should therefore be totally relied on.
Shri Shiam Singh, ACP, Crime Branch (DW 2)
has deposed that he investigated as a member of
the special investigating agency headed by the
DCP (Vigilance) the complaint of atrocities
committed during the riots including complaint
of Sardar Piara Singh of GT Karnal Road and
found that the allegations of Sardar Piara Singh
against the C.O. could not be substantiated.
Shri K.L. Kiara, retired Inspector of Police (DW3)
stated that on 7th of November 1984, Sardar
Piara Singh had made a complaint about his
workplace cum residence having been looted. In
this connection, four persons were arrested on
the identification made by Sardar Piara Singh
and the case was put to Court. He has also stated
that Sadar Piara Singh’s family was dispatched
in a car to a place of safety. His complaint
against the C.O. was thus totally unfounded.
Inspector Satya Prakash (DW4) has deposed to
the effect that Sardar Piara Singh had some
animus against him as he had arrested Sardar
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 18 of 39

Piara Singh under Delhi Police Act, a few months
back.
Constable Anil Kumar (DW 5) of police station
Model Town proved with the help of the original
daily diary PS Model Town that on 1.11.84
twenty-six persons were arrested under the
preventive sections 107/151 CrPC in connection
with these riots. He also proved the arrest of
eight persons in the jurisdiction of PS Kingsway
Camp on 2.11.84.
Head Constable Hukum Singh of PS Model Town
has proved with the help of original Malkana
Register (exhibit DW6 /A) that a substantial
quantity of property looted by the rioters was
recovered by the C.O. and his staff, and restored
to their owners.
In view of facts and circumstances mentioned
above the Article 1 of Charge regarding the lack
of effective control and non-utilization of staff
and lack of preventive measures, etc. remains
unproved.

Charge No.2
“That Shri Durga Prasad did not take any action
to control the mob either by the use of tear gas,
lathi charge or firing.”

Statement of imputations in support of
charge 2
“It is evident from the record that mob violence
started in the area of PS Kingsway camp on
1.11.84 and continued up to 4.11.84. Cases of
arson and looting were reported at Rana Pratap
Bagh, Mukherjee Nagar, Model Town, Wazirabad
on 1.11.84. At taxi stand Rana Pratap Bagh,
taxis and buses were set on fire by the mob.
Incidents of arson and looting occurred at Model
Town and Outer Ring Rd. Gurudwara at
Mukherjee Nagar was set on fire by the mob.
Violence was reported at Mukaraba Chowk and
Wazirabad. During riots mobs burnt several cars
and two wheelers and about 15 persons were
killed. No arrests were made under the cases
registered during the riot. No effective firing was
resorted to by the SHO.”
The incidents mentioned in the statement of
imputations may have taken place, but none of
them has been proved by any evidence produced
on behalf of the disciplinary authority with the
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 19 of 39

help of any independent eyewitness. Some of
these incidents do find mention in the radio
logbook in respect of PS Kingsway Camp. The
C.O. has mentioned in his defense that as many
as 106 persons were arrested by him and his
staff during these riots. The details have been
given in the handwritten copies of the extracts
from the relevant daily diaries (annexure III of his
defense statement, 286/C to 292/C) regarding
the 8 persons who had died in his area. Four
persons, according to the C.O., had come from
Punjab who got caught into the clutches of the
riots. According to him, 53 rounds were fired at
different places at different times and dates
during this period. He further says that no tear
gas was available at his disposal. This statement
has not been refuted by any evidence or
argument by the Presenting Officer. The C.O.
also takes the credit of recovering property worth
Rs. 4.1 lakhs under his supervision. The details
given in his defence statement (annexure IV
221/C to 271/C). No prosecution evidence has
come forth to refute these facts. It has already
been mentioned while discussing Article 1 of
Charge that whenever needed the C.O. and his
force resorted to lathi charge. In short, this
Article has not been supported with any type of
evidence either oral or documentary. The
Presenting Officer argues that D.D. entries
No.6A, 9A and 73B dated 1.11.84 show that no
action was taken by the C.O. He has, however,
not mentioned as to what these entries were
about. Nor has he been able to summon any
witness to prove the veracity of the contents of
those entries after a proper cross- examination
of the witnesses by the C.O. In spite of this, the
C.O. has replied to this point in his written
arguments. He says that action taken by Sub-
Inspector Karan Singh is mentioned in D.D.
entry No.49 dated 1.11.84 and in case of
incident, some local police officer was also
present on the spot to control the situation
before arrival of S.I. Karan Singh. Likewise, he
has given details of actions taken in respect of all
the D.D. entries mentioned by the Presenting
Officer.
In fact, Article 2 of the Charge is hardly any
different in substance from Article 1 of Charge
which has been discussed above in detail. What
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 20 of 39

is, however, really important to notice is that the
allegation of inaction on the part of the C.O.
seems to be totally baseless, and that his non-
use of tear gas was occasioned by its non-
availability to him. In view of the facts and
circumstances discussed above, Article 2 of
charge remains unproved.

Charge No.3
“That Shri Durga Prasad, SHO had not made any
efforts to implement order under section 144
CrPC which was promulgated on 31.10.84 and
to enforce the curfew which was imposed
subsequently.”

Statement of imputations in support of
Article 3 of Charge
“He made no efforts to implement the order
under section 144 CrPC which was promulgated
on 31/10/84 and the curfew which was imposed
subsequently. He did not use lathi charge, tear
gas or resorted to effective firing to control the
mob as no one was injured or killed by the police
firing.”
This Article of Charge is again a substantial
repetition of the earlier two charges. It has been
made abundantly clear while discussing the
earlier Articles of charge, that there is no
evidence on record to show any inaction, lack of
effective control, inaction on preventive
measures, etc. on the part of the C.O. On the
contrary, there is adequate evidence and
explanations in the C.O's defense statement to
prove that he and his staff spared no efforts in
controlling the riots, although with varying
degrees of success. In view of this, the charge
that he did not make any efforts to implement
the prohibitory order under section 144 CrPC
appears to be rather far-fetched. Every action
taken with a view to dispersing the mob was an
effort to implement section 144 CrPC.
The C.O. has stated in his written arguments
that the mobs were dispersed but no arrest
under section 188 of the IPC for the reason that
he did not have enough manpower for effecting
arrests of such overwhelming number as were
encountered on the troubled spots.
In view of this, Article 3 of the charge remains
unproved.
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 21 of 39


Charge No.4
“That Shri Durga Prasad, SHO did not make any
efforts to utilize even the additional force which
was made available to him on 1st, 2nd and 3rd
November 1984.”

Statement of imputations in support of
Charge No.4
“Additional force of 2 SIs, 13 HCs and 177
Constables was made available to him on
1.11.84, 2.11.84 and 3.11.84 but he did not
utilize the additional force properly to monitor
the incidents of rioting and did not make
adequate efforts to control the situation in the
area of PS Kingsway Camp.”
Replying to this charge, the C.O. has stated that
additional force provided to his police station
was inadequate. Besides, it was made available
to him long after it was demanded. The meagre
st
additional force provided to him during 1
th
November to 4 November was deployed to
protect the important installations, gurudwaras
and other vulnerable areas depending on the
situation prevailing on that particular moment.
Annexure 11 of his defence statement gives all
the details. The crux of the C.O.'s argument is
that some additional force was supplied to him
but its arrival was not timely. Reinforcement
arrived as and when available, and not as and
when needed. The Presenting Officer has not
been able to specify any particular case or
incident which was allowed to happen in spite of
the fact that adequate force was available to him
to prevent that situation. Nor has he been able
to show that additional force provided was sitting
idle or was deployed at places which did not need
them. In absence of evidence on such vital
points, this charge remains unproved.

Summing Up
During his general questioning, the C.O. has
summed up the entire situation prevailing at
that time in a satisfactory manner. He says that
in the firings the aim was to disperse the mob
rather than to injure them. That is how no
injuries were reported in cases of police firings.
The outside police force placed at his disposal
was too small especially in view of the fact that
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 22 of 39

the incidents were happening in a very
haphazard manner and at locations very far from
each other. With the help of a force consisting of
100 armed persons, or so, it was not possible to
control the riots which happened at an
unprecedented scale. There was no prior
information of any of these happenings and the
police were just taken by surprise at the
developments. He also mentions that his
superior officers never gave him an indication
that his work during the riots was in any way
less than what was expected of him. He was, in
fact, promoted to the rank of Assistant
Commissioner of Police in the year 1985 i.e.,
soon after these riots, obviously, on the basis of
good reports on his conduct and performance
given by senior officers.
Considering all these facts and circumstances,
and that none of the individual charges has been
proved against him, there is no case of any
misconduct, or contravention of the provisions of
rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, against Sri
Durga Prasad, the Charged Officer.

Signed RP Rai
Inquiring Authority
Dated: 28.1.1999”
(Emphasis supplied)

21. On the aforesaid report, the disagreement note
of the disciplinary authority sent along with the notice
issued to the appellant dated 04.01.2001, which is
part of Annexure P-6, is reproduced below:
“ Note giving reasons for disagreement
with the findings of inquiry officer in the case
of Sh. Durga Prasad, A.C.P. By the
Disciplinary authority i.e. Governor, Delhi .
1. I have examined the Inquiry Report on the
charges against Shri Durga Prasad, formerly
Station House Officer, Police Station Kingsway
Camp, Delhi. Although the Inquiry Officer has
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 23 of 39

held that none of the charges have been proved
against the Charged Officer, I am not in
agreement with the findings of the Inquiry
Officer. These findings are, in the first place, not
based on a correct appreciation of evidence and
the documents available on record. Moreover,
the Inquiry Officer, in the summing up of his
report, has used extraneous factors to absolve
the Charged Officer of any wrong doing which
have nothing to do with either the facts on record
or the inquiry process, for instance by alluding
to the promotion earned-by the Charged Officer
in 1985, “soon after the riots”, which has led the
Inquiry Officer to presume that this was so on
the basis of his good conduct and performance.
The charges framed against the officer have to be
considered on their own merits and based on the
relevant evidence. Neither adverse nor positive
ACR entries, nor even the fact of subsequent
promotion, should be used to prejudice the
evaluation of charges against any official who is
subject to disciplinary proceedings, except his
actions in respect to the charges faced by him. If
this were not true, no action could possibly be
taken against an officer promoted subsequent to
the period in which he has committed
misdemeanour attracting a major or minor
penalty.
2. The Charged Officer had inspected the
original documents (copies of which had been
made available to him with the charge sheet),
except the radio logbook of the Control Room of
North District. The logbook of vehicles of the
Police Station Kingsway Camp, also not
provided, was incidentally not a listed document.
It is also true that none of the 7 witnesses who
had filed affidavits in connection with the
November, 1984 riots before the Inquiry
Commission set up on the matter appeared
before the Inquiry Officer, despite summons
(given that the precise whereabouts of the
majority of the witnesses were known). As a
result, the Presenting Officer had to rely upon
the documentary material at hand. A reading of
the Inquiry Report, however, reveals that the
Inquiry Officer was unable to take account of the
documentary evidence presented in arriving
upon his conclusions, for instance, he has stated
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 24 of 39

in the Inquiry Report that the “radio logbook of
P.S. Kingsway Camp” and FIR nos.785, 786 &
789, all of which were listed documents, could
not be produced. This is incorrect. In his letter
dated October 7, 1992 sent in response to the
letter forwarding prosecution documents sent by
the then Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Vigilance), Delhi, dated August 28, 1992 the
Charged Officer confirmed receipt of, inter alia,
the radio logbook of P.S. Kingsway Camp dated
31.10.1984 - 4.11.1984 as also the relevant
FIRs. Furthermore, in his written submission
made on July 30, 1998, made in response to the
charge memo, dated August 20, 1992, the
Charged Officer admitted to having received the
documents. Thereupon, in his defence
statement made before the inquiry officer on
October 21, 1998, Shri Durga Prasad once again
acknowledged the foregoing documents,
including the radio logbook of P.S. Kingsway
Camp and the FIRs as “admitted by the Charged
Officer as a matter of record.” The principal
infirmity in the findings of the Inquiry Officer
stems from the fact of his having not considered
the full documentary evidence and his erroneous
surmise that the prosecution documents were
deficient.
3. Article I of the charge concerns the failure
on the part of the Charged Officer, while
functioning as SHO, to utilise his staff effectively
and to take effective preventive measures to
control the violence which started in the wake of
the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi that
resulted in heavy loss of life and property during
the November 1984 riots. According to the radio
logbook entries dated 31.10.1984 at 12.24 hrs.,
17.20 hrs and 19.22 hrs., the Charged Officer
was instructed to mobilize maximum force in the
area of P.S. Kingsway Camp and to maintain law
and order so that no untoward incidents could
take place, despite these instructions, the
Charged Officer failed to effectively mobilize his
force in the area. Besides the regular force with
the Police Station constituted by the Charged
Officer, 9 Sub-Inspectors, 7 Assistant Sub-
Inspectors, 18 Head Constables and 75
Constables, additional force was also made
available to him from 01.11.1984 onwards. No
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 25 of 39

preventive arrests were made or bad characters
arrested on 31.10.1984 or 01.11.1984. This fact
has been admitted by DW-5 in the cross-
examination during his deposition in the inquiry
proceedings. The observation of the Inquiry
Officer that on 01.11.1984, 26 persons were
arrested under the preventive sections 107/151
Cr.P.C. in connection with the riots is contrary
to the documentary evidence available on record.

4. Considerable information of ongoing violent
incidents of looting, arson and clashes was
passed on to the Charged Officer as shown by the
radio logbook and daily diary register, but the
action taken by him was not commensurate to
the requirements, which resulted in loss of
innocent lives and destruction of property. While
the Kusum Lata Mittal report on the conduct of
Delhi Police during the November 1984 riots
mentioned 15 deaths in the area within the
jurisdiction of P.S. Kingsway Camp. Even a
single death, if it was avertable and a result of
ineffective action on the part of those responsible
for law enforcement, is unacceptable and for
which responsibility must be fixed.

5. The Charged Officer was expected to take
stock of the serious situation and take timely
preventive measures, but he failed to rise to the
occasion. The case is thus not one of a routine
dereliction of duty of a disciplinary proceeding
concerning a normal occurrence of inaction and
negligence. It is part of the November 1984 riots
that had resulted in a terrible loss of lives and
disturbance of public peace that had torn the
fabric of civic society in Delhi. Given the
evidence cited above, the Charged Officer cannot
possibly be absolved of his responsibility in the
failure to make effective measures to control the
violence within the area under the jurisdiction.
Article-I of the charge thus stands proved.

6. Article-II of the charge relates to the failure of
the Charged Officer to take any action to control
the mob either by the use of tear-gas, lathi-
charge or firing, according to the entries made in
the radio logbook of P.S. Kingsway Camp, mob
violence began within the area on 01.11.1984
and continued until 04.11.1984. Both the radio
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 26 of 39

logbook and the daily diary entries of the Police
Station indicate that many serious instances of
arson and looting were reported from areas
within the jurisdiction covered by the Charged
Officer. At Rana Pratap Bagh taxi stand, buses
and taxis were burnt by the mob. The Gurdwara
at Mukherjee Nagar was set on fire. Daily diary
entries nos.A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9 and 8-73 and radio
logbook entries at 8.35, 11.20, 11.30, 12.03,
12.40, 12.47, 13.20, 13.40, 15.10, 15.25, 16.02,
16.4, 17.15 and 22.25 hrs. dated 01.11.1984
indicate that no action was taken by me Charged
Officer either to use lathi-charge or resort to
effective firing to control the mobs as not a single
person was injured in the police firing. There is
no daily diary entry to this effect either on
31.10.1984 or 01.11.1984. The organised mobs
could only have been prevented from indulging
in criminal acts of killing of innocent people and
destroying property if they had been firmly
deterred, which was unfortunately not the case.
Article-II of the charge thus also stands proved.

7. According to Article-III of the charge, the
Charged Officer had made no effort to implement
prohibitory order under section 144 Cr.P.C.,
which was promulgated on 31.10.1984 and the
curfew that was imposed subsequently. There is
not a single entry on the records of the Police
Station that announcements of the promulgation
of the order under section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area
was made on 31.10.1984 or that of imposition of
curfew on 01.11.1984. The Charged Officer has
admitted in written reply to the arguments
submitted by the Presenting Officer in support of
the charges framed against the Charged Officer
on December 14, 1998 that he made no arrest
under section 188 IPC for violating the
prohibitory orders. According to him, “no person
was apprehended on the spot for violating the
above orders due to shortage of manpower in
comparison of rioters at one place.” The Charged
Officer has not detailed any other steps taken by
him to quell the rioting in the absence of arrests.
A scrutiny of the daily diary and radio logbook
shows that numerous instances of rioting were
reported in the areas under the command of the
Charged Officer. FIR No.785, registered n
01.11.1984 at 06 p.m. mentioned the incident of
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 27 of 39

burning of taxis and buses at the Rana Pratap
Bagh taxi stand, the gathering large crowds
indulging in looting and arson around
Gurdwaras and the discovery of dead bodies at
various places. Neither the FIR, registered on the
basis of a report by the Charged Officer himself,
nor the daily diary entries of the relevant period
speak of how many teargas shells or live rounds
were fired to disperse the unruly mobs. They
were allowed to assemble despite the
promulgation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the
imposition of curfew. There is little evidence of
any serious effort made by the Charged Officer to
implement the prohibitory orders effectively
within the area under his jurisdiction. Article III
of the charge is, therefore, also established.

8. Article IV of the charge concerns the failure of
the Charged Officer to utilize the additional force
provided to him to monitor and control the
incidents of rioting in his area on 1-3 November,
1984. Besides the regular force available to him
at the Police Station, he had been given an
additional force of 2 Sub-Inspectors, 13 Head
Constables and 177 Constables from 01.11.1984
onwards. But he seems to have made
inadequate use of this force. In addition, the
burning of 6 Gurdwaras, cases of arson, looting
and killings were reported at Rana Pratap Bagh,
G.T. Karnal Road, Gujaranwala Town,
Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp and Model
Town. A number of factories on G.T. Karnal
Road Industrial Area were also looted and burnt
by rioters. Police force were little in evidence at
these trouble spots. Article IV of the charge is
thus also proved.
9. The Inquiry Officer has not fully taken into
account the detailed documentary evidence
including the meticulous entries made in the
radio logbooks, in the course of the disciplinary
proceedings. The entire inquiry process has
thus been flawed by the selective manner in
which evidence had been used in this case. For
this reason, I am not inclined to accept the
findings of the Inquiry Officer.”

(Emphasis supplied)

SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 28 of 39

22. A careful reading of the inquiry report would
make it clear all the four charges against the appellant
were overlapping. Those were in respect of:

(a) failure to utilise staff and to take effective
preventive measures to control the violence
erupting on assassination of the then Prime
Minister;
(b) non-use of tear gas, lathi-charge and firing to
control the mob;
(c) not making efforts to implement prohibitory
orders issued under Section 144 CrPC;
(d) non-utilisation of additional force made
available.
23. The Inquiry Officer found charges not proved.
While holding so, it considered evidence in detail and
made certain observations which form the bedrock of
exoneration. Some of those observations, which are
underscored in the inquiry report extracted above,
indicate:
(a) that there was no evidence led to disclose any
occasion or location where lathi-charge, tear gas
or firing was needed but was not resorted to;
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 29 of 39


(b) that the Presenting Officer raised a
misconceived plea that the burden of proof in
such cases lies on the Charged Officer;

(c) that occurrence of violent incidents or deaths
in the jurisdiction of a police officer does not, ipso
facto, prove his incompetence, negligence or
dereliction of duty unless it is established that he
was given adequate men and resources to tackle
the law-and-order situation, yet he willfully did
not use them with some ulterior motive;


(d) that the Presenting Officer failed to show that
additional force was made available to the
Charged Officer in time with information to take
preventive action.

(e) that the Charged Officer claimed that on
1.11.1984 he tried his level best, with the help of
force available with him, to control the situation;
he took special care to protect the residences of
Sardar Richpal Singh, Nirankari Baba and
Ashwani Minna, proprietor of the newspaper
‘Punjab Kesri’ - all prominent persons residing in
the area of Kingsway Camp including important
installations like telephone exchange and the
radio station; on 1.11.84 he had no extra force
except the meagre staff available at the police
station; further, at 8:30 AM, he requested for fire
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 30 of 39

brigade, which was not made available to him; the
additional force made available to him, consisting
of 18 persons of the CRPF, were deployed at
Gurdwara Nanak Piau and the radio station, as a

result, those places were saved from vandalism;

(f) that the Presenting Officer failed to refute the
claim of Charged Officer regarding tackling
number of incidents that took place at Gurdwara
Mukherjee Nagar, along the GT Karnal Rd.,
Gurdwara Dhirpur, Gurdwara ‘D’ Block and a few
residential units at Gujranwala Town, Model
Town III, C.C. Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Nirankari Colony etc.;

(g) that the defense witness Sri DL Kashyap
(DW1), who was the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Kingsway Camp and the Charged Officer’s
immediate superior, had deposed that in the
morning of 1.11.84, SHO Durga Prasad (the C.O.)
accompanied him to Rana Pratap Bagh, and they
managed to disperse the unruly mob by resorting
to a vigorous lathi charge. According to him, the
C.O. did good work in Model Town, where he also
rescued a Sikh family from the clutches of the
rioters and protected a number of prominent Sikh
leaders; he also ensured the safety and security of
Gurdwara Model Town, another sensitive and
vulnerable place;
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 31 of 39


(h) that the reliability of DW-1 could not be
doubted because he was not an accused in
connection with those riots, rather he got
commendations from many quarters for his good
work;

(i) that Charged Officer and his men arrested as
many as 106 persons during those riots, which
was proved by handwritten copies of extracts
drawn from relevant daily diaries (annexure III of
defense statement, 286/C to 292/C);


(j) that out of eight deaths in Charged Officer’s
area, four were of those who, while coming from
Punjab, got caught in the riots;

(k) that 53 rounds were fired at different places
and at different points in time during this period
with an intent to disperse the crowd, not to injure
anyone; and

(l) that the statement of the Charged Officer that
there was no tear gas at his disposal was not
refuted by the Presenting Officer.

24. The aforesaid observations in the inquiry
report would indicate 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
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 32 of 39

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 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.
25. In the context of the detailed inquiry report,
the disagreement note is cryptic and ignores vital
aspects that were considered by the Inquiry Officer in
his report, such as, (a) force was limited; (b) focus was
on saving critical installations and potential targets;
(c) firing was resorted to, though not to injure; (d) DW-
1, Charged Officer’s immediate senior applauded the
work of the Charged Officer under the circumstances;
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 33 of 39

and (e) 106 arrests were effected as borne out from
hand written notes extracted from daily diaries.
26. Interestingly, the Disciplinary Authority in his
disagreement note laid emphasis on what was not
done, or what could have been done, namely, (a)
entries were not made in the relevant diaries regarding
announcement of prohibitory order; (b) no tear gas
shells were used; (c) no injury caused to anyone in
lathi-charge or police firing; (d) additional force not
properly deployed; and (e) no preventive arrests
effected between 31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984.
27. As regards observation of not making entries
in relevant diaries regarding announcement of
prohibitory orders, the statement of imputation in the
context of that charge (i.e., charge no.3) makes no
such allegation on the Charged Officer. Had there
been a specific charge there could have been an
explanation. May be such entries are made by
different set of employees posted at the police station.
Be that as it may, in absence of a specific imputation
in respect of not making entries of public
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 34 of 39

announcement of prohibitory orders in the diaries, in
our view, adverse inference ought not to have been
drawn against the appellant on that count, as the
same would be beyond the scope of the charge (i.e,
charge no.3) when read in conjunction with the
statement of imputation.
28. Regarding non-use of tear gas shells, first
there ought to have been evidence that they were
available for use. Dissent note does not indicate
presence of evidence in that regard. Therefore, in our
view, dissent on that count is not warranted.
29. Absence of gunshot injury to any of the rioters,
in our view, is not a ground to assume inaction on the
part of the police force. Firing at mob has dangerous
consequences. If shots are fired in air to disperse the
crowd, the purpose stands served. Whereas firing at
the crowd may not only injure the persons targeted
but also several others who may be innocent. It is a
matter of common knowledge that rifle bullets travel
at a high velocity and may pierce the targeted person
to strike unintended targets as well. Therefore, the
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 35 of 39

plea of the Charged Officer that shots were fired not
with a view to injure but to disperse the mob, in our
view, is a bona fide plea, which does not call for any

adverse inference against him.
30. Regarding deployment of additional force,
there is no evidence that such number of police
personnel were to be deployed here and such number
were to be deployed there. Inquiry Officer has
observed that there was complete lack of evidence that
police force was sitting idle and were not deployed.
Importantly, the defence plea is that deployment of
forces were at important Government installations
and at potential targets. Considering the scale at
which riots broke out it is difficult to assume that with
limited resources, as is found in the inquiry report,
deployment of forces could be across the entire area
under the command of the concerned police station.
Therefore, in our view, dissent on this count also is
unwarranted, particularly, in absence of evidence that
police force was sitting idle with no deployment
orders.
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 36 of 39

31. As regards allegation that no preventive
arrests were made by the Charged Officer, suffice it to
say that it is an allegation easy to make but difficult
to prove. There is no evidence cited in the
disagreement note that reports of a plan to indulge in
rioting came to the knowledge of the Charged Officer
but he took no preventive action. Admittedly, riots
broke out suddenly as soon as information of
assassination of the then Prime Minister spread.
Thus, absence of preventive arrest is not a ground to
believe that there was inaction on the part of the
Charged Officer. Notably, as per observations in the
inquiry report, arrests were effected. May not be by
way of preventive measure but as a response to
rioting.
32. Besides above, we note that the disciplinary
proceeding against the appellant was initiated after 8
years of the incident when by that time the appellant
had already earned his promotion. We are conscious
of the law that promotion does not automatically wipe
out any misconduct of a delinquent employee,
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 37 of 39

particularly when it comes to light later. Here also,
police personnel were put in the dock when a
Committee, appointed later, reported laxity on the
part of police in handling 1984 Riots. 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. 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.
33. For all the reasons above, we are of the
considered view that it would be too harsh upon the
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 38 of 39

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.
34. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of
the High Court giving liberty to the disciplinary
authority to issue a fresh disagreement note, and
proceed accordingly, is set aside. The writ petition of
the appellant stands allowed. The order of the High
Court to the extent it quashed the order of
punishment is affirmed. The appellant shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits including
revision of pension, if any payable, accordingly.
35. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
36. There is no order as to costs.

…............................................. J.
(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha)

................................................ J.
(Manoj Misra)

New Delhi;
April 23, 2025
SLP (C) No.2111 OF 2023 Page 39 of 39