1984 riots: Nation still bleeding, punish SHO who failed to act, says Delhi HC

The disciplinary authority held him guilty of the charges and he challenged that order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which rejected his plea, following which he moved the high court in appeal

Observing that the nation was still bleeding from “one of the most unfortunate tragedies”, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Delhi high court on Monday directed the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh order of punishment against a retired police officer, who was charged with the failure of duty and misconduct during the violence.

Holding that the allegations levelled against him were serious and the violence had claimed the lives of innocent people, a bench of chief justice Satish Chandra Sharma and justice Subramonium Prasad said the officer’s advanced age will not come to his rescue in escaping punishment. (HT Archive)

The petitioner Durga Prasad, who is now 79 years old, was the station house officer (SHO) at the Kingsway Camp police station at the time of the violence and was accused of not making preventive detentions, deploying adequate force and employing sufficient measures in disbursing rioters.

The disciplinary authority held him guilty of the charges and he challenged that order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which rejected his plea, following which he moved the high court in appeal.

Holding that the allegations levelled against him were serious and the violence had claimed the lives of innocent people, a bench of chief justice Satish Chandra Sharma and justice Subramonium Prasad said the officer’s advanced age will not come to his rescue in escaping punishment.

Prasad was first accused of misconduct in the 1984 riots in the 1990s and when the inquiry officer submitted a report on the charges against him, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings and a fresh charge sheet was issued against Prasad.

The decision was challenged by Prasad before the CAT, which in 2000, asked the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement.

In 2001, the disciplinary authority again held the police officer guilty after serving him with a note of disagreement. Prasad again approached the tribunal, which dismissed his application in 2002.

The petitioner assailed the CAT orders before the high court on the ground that he was only granted a “post-decisional hearing” in the matter.

The court said that the charges against the petitioner were serious and granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a “fresh note of disagreement” and asked the petitioner to respond to it within four weeks.

“Thereafter the disciplinary authority will be free to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner has obtained the age of superannuation and therefore the competent authority shall be free to pass appropriate order of punishment keeping in view the date of retirement and pension rules,” the court said.