Holding

Given the extensive delay, the appellant’s retirement, and the exonerating inquiry findings, it was too harsh to order a fresh disagreement note, and the High Court’s liberty to the disciplinary authority was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, a former Inspector of Police, was charged with dereliction of duty for allegedly failing to control the 1984 anti‑Sikh riots. An inquiry officer exonerated him, but the disciplinary authority disagreed and issued a punishment of reduction in rank, which the High Court set aside and directed a fresh disagreement note. The appellant challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that a fresh proceeding after a 40‑year lapse and his retirement would be harsh and contrary to natural justice. The Supreme Court examined the inquiry report, the nature of the disagreement note, and the principles governing disciplinary proceedings, noting the lack of evidence to prove the charges and the appellant’s commendable conduct. It held that ordering a fresh disagreement note would be unduly harsh given the elapsed time and the appellant’s retirement, and therefore set aside the High Court’s liberty to the disciplinary authority. Consequently, the appellant’s writ petition was allowed and he was entitled to all consequential benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should have granted the disciplinary authority liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note and proceed with punishment.
Whether a fresh disciplinary proceeding is appropriate in view of the long delay, the appellant’s retirement, and the exonerating inquiry report.
Whether the disciplinary authority’s disagreement note constituted a post‑decisional hearing violating natural justice.
Whether the charges of dereliction of duty were proved on a pre‑ponderance of probability standard applicable to service matters.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (CCA) Ruless. 1965
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Ruless. Rule 14, s. Rule 15, s. Rule 3
Central Civil Services (Pension) Ruless. 1972
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107, s. 144, s. 151
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 188

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to initiation of inquiry against the appellant (Inspector of Police at the time of riots) on account of dereliction of duty in controlling the 1984 riots. Whether, in the facts of the case, the High Court ought to have given liberty to the Disciplinary whether it is a fit case to put a quietus to the proceeding. Headnotes† Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – The charges against the appellant are in respect of failure to control the 1984 riots in the area under the command of the appellant – The appellant was

Subjects

Service LawDisciplinary Proceedings1984 riotsFailure to control the 1984 riotsDe novo inquiryDisagreement noteFresh note of disagreementInquiry reportProhibitory orderChargeScope of charge

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1572 : 2025 INSC 548

Durga Prasad
v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5456 of 2025)
23 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to initiation of inquiry against the appellant (Inspector
of Police at the time of riots) on account of dereliction of duty in
controlling the 1984 riots. Whether, in the facts of the case, the
High Court ought to have given liberty to the Disciplinary Authority
to correct its mistake; whether it is a fit case to put a quietus to
the proceeding.

Headnotes†
Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – The charges against
the appellant are in respect of failure to control the 1984 riots
in the area under the command of the appellant – The 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 – Instead of issuing a disagreement note
simpliciter, the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice along
with a note expressing its opinion that appellant is guilty and,
thereafter, proceeded to impose punishment of reduction in
rank – High Court set aside the order of punishment and gave
liberty to issue a fresh note of disagreement – Correctness:
Held: The 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 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
appeared as a defence witness, he stated that the appellant did a
commendable job with the limited resources available with him –

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1573

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Absence of gunshot injury to any of the rioters is
not a ground to assume inaction on the part of the police force –
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 – 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 –
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 – This Court is 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 – Thus, the order of
the High Court giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue
a fresh disagreement note, and proceed accordingly, is set aside.
[Paras 24, 25, 26-32]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Charges against
the appellant that he failed to control the 1984 riots in an area
1574 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

under his command – Inquiry officer exonerated him – However,
Disciplinary Authority disagreed and issued a notice along with
a note expressing its opinion that appellant is guilty – High
Court set aside the order of punishment and gave liberty to
issue a fresh note of disagreement – Whether it is a fit case
to put a quietus to the proceeding – Discussed:
Held: It is settled 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 case may
demand – On facts, held, 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 – 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. [Paras 17, 32, 33]

Case Law Cited
Allahabad Bank & Others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari [2017] 1 SCR
389 : (2017) 2 SCC 308; M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [2006] 3 SCR
896 : (2006) 5 SCC 88; Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra
[1998] Supp. 1 SCR 22 : (1998) 7 SCC 84; Yoginath Bagde v.
State of Maharashtra & Another [1999] Supp. 2 SCR 490 : (1999)
7 SCC 739 – referred to.

List of Keywords
Service Law; Disciplinary Proceedings; 1984 riots; Failure to control
the 1984 riots; De novo inquiry; Disagreement note; Fresh note
of disagreement; Inquiry report; Prohibitory order; Charge; Scope
of charge.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5456 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 1085 of 2002
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1575

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul Pandey,
Tara Chauhan, Himanshu Raj, Harsh Kumar, Sudipta Singha Roy.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv., Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Alka Agarwal, Mukul Singh, Aman Sharma,
Amit Sharma Ii, Raj Singh Rana, Ms. Manisha Chava.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Manoj Misra, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi1 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 Tribunal2 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 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 of Police (i.e., Station House
Officer3) at Police Station Kingsway Camp, North District, Delhi. During
that period, post assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira
Gandhi, “Anti-Sikh Riots4” 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

1 The High Court
2 CAT
3 SHO
4 1984 riots
1576 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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 appellant filed
Original Application5 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 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 O.A.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1577

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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:
“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
1578 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 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 steps
would be taken and there is no question of bias as by now there
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1579

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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 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,
1580 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 case may demand6. At times,
where enquiry is found faulty, necessitating a remand, the Court may,
on account of long delay, instead of remanding the matter, mould
the relief as was done by this Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani v.
Union of India7.
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 the delinquent8. In the
instant case, the note issued by the Disciplinary Authority was more
an expression 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

6 See: Allahabad Bank & others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 (paragraph 8)
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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1581

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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.
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.
1582 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

As a result, the Presenting Officer had to rely on the
documentary evidence like the radio log 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1583

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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
1584 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1585

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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
1586 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

‘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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1587

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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.”
1588 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1589

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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.”
1590 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

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 additional force provided to him
during 1st November to 4th November was deployed to
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1591

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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
1592 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1593

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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
1594 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1595

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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 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
1596 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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,
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1597

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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)

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;
(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,
1598 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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;
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1599

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

(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 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; 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
1600 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1601

Durga Prasad v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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.
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, 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 appellant to undergo a fresh exercise
1602 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan