The court said that Khanna has placed the liquor policy on record and raised “all kinds of wild allegations against” the Delhi LG, CBI and ED based upon the statements of third persons, including the Deputy CM, MLAs and newspaper clippings. (File)Directing the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh order of punishment against a police officer who was charged with abdication of duty and misconduct during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Delhi High Court Monday said the nation was still bleeding and age will not help the retired officer.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said innocent people lost their lives during the riots and there were serious charges against the petitioner, Durga Prasad, the then SHO of Kingsway Camp police station.
“He may be 100. Kindly see the misconduct. Innocent people lost their lives. The nation is still bleeding. On that ground, you cannot get away. Age will not help,” said the court after the petitioner’s counsel submitted that he is now 79 years old.
The court said that since the police officer has superannuated, the Disciplinary Authority shall be free to pass an appropriate order of punishment keeping in view date of retirement and pension rules. The bench noted that the petitioner was SHO of the police station “when one of the most unfortunate tragedies took place” in the national capital.
Prasad was, in the 1990s, accused by his department of not making any preventive detentions or deploying proper force in the area to disburse the miscreants. When the inquiry officer submitted a report on the charges against him, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and a fresh chargesheet was issued against Prasad. The decision was challenged before the central administrative tribunal by Prasad. The tribunal in 2000 asked the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement and serve the same on petitioner.
In 2001, the Disciplinary Authority again held the police officer guilty after serving him with the note of disagreement. Prasad again approached the tribunal which this time dismissed his application in 2002. Before the HC, his counsel argued that the hearing was given to him by the disciplinary authority only after recording the findings of guilt.
The division bench said the HC has already in March 2016 decided the legal issue regarding giving hearing prior to making a decision, and accordingly granted the liberty to Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
The court also granted the petitioner liberty to respond to the disagreement note within a period of four weeks. “Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority shall be free to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law,” it said.