Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
Absence Of Gunshot Injury On Rioters Not A Ground To Assume Inaction: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Police Official Against Disciplinary Action In 1984 Riots Case
|The Supreme Court noted that the disciplinary proceeding against the police official was initiated after 8 years of the incident when by that time he had already earned his promotion.
The Supreme Court has granted relief to a police official against the disciplinary action in a case relating to the Anti-Sikh Riots 1984.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Delhi High Court by which though the Writ Petition was allowed against the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) Order, liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement within four weeks and pass appropriate orders.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held, “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.”
The Bench noted that the disciplinary proceeding against the police official was initiated after 8 years of the incident when by that time he had already earned his promotion.
AOR Atul Kumar represented the Appellant while ASG Aishwarya Bhati and Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant in the year 1984 was posted as Inspector of Police at a Police Station in Delhi. During that period, post assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, “Anti-Sikh Riots” broke out. In May 1985, he 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 in 1992, charging him for dereliction of duty/negligence in controlling those riots in the area under his command. In the ensuing inquiry, vide report, 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 in 1999.
Being aggrieved by direction for a de novo inquiry, the Appellant filed an Original Application before the CAT and the same was allowed. Pursuantly, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement notice calling upon the Appellant to submit his representation within 15 days of its receipt. The Inquiry Report was supplied in 2001 and after getting response from the Appellant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction in rank upon him, thereby demoting him to the post of Inspector from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, till retirement. The Appellant challenged this before CAT via Application which was dismissed. He then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was allowed but a liberty was given to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement to the Appellant. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “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.”
The Court said that the plea of the Charged Officer that shots were fired not with a view to injure but to disperse the mob, is a bona fide plea, which does not call for any adverse inference against him.
“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”, it added.
The Court further noted that 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, and therefore, dissent on this count also is unwarranted, particularly, in absence of evidence that police force was sitting idle with no deployment orders.
“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”, it said.
The Court also observed that the absence of preventive arrest is not a ground to believe that there was inaction on the part of the Charged Officer.
“We are conscious of the law that promotion does not automatically wipe out any misconduct of a delinquent employee, 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”, it reiterated.
The Court added that 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”, it remarked.
The Court, therefore, concluded 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order giving liberty to the disciplinary authority, and affirmed the said Order to the extent it quashed the punishment order.
Cause Title- Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 548)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Atul Kumar, Advocates Sweety Singh, Archana Kumari, Rahul Pandey, Harsh Kumar, VB Pandey, and AVS Kadyan.
Respondents: ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Alka Agarwal, Mukul Singh, Aman Sharma, Amit Sharma, and Raj Singh Rana.