The Delhi High Court (File)Directing the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh order of punishment against a police officer who was charged with the abdication of duty and misconduct during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Delhi High Court Monday said the nation was still bleeding and the 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 1984 riots and serious charges have been levelled against the petitioner Durga Prasad, the then station house officer (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 [of age] 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 since the police officer has superannuated, the Disciplinary Authority shall be free to pass appropriate order of punishment keeping in view the date of retirement and pension rules. The bench noted that the petitioner was the SHO of the police station “when one of the most unfortunate tragedies took place” in the national capital.
Prasad was accused in the 1990s by his department of not making any preventive detentions, not deploying proper force in the area, and not taking any action to disburse the attackers. 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 before the Central Administrative Tribunal by Prasad. The tribunal had in 2000 asked the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement and serve the same on the petitioner.
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 this time dismissed his application in 2002.
Prasad’s counsel argued before the high court that a hearing was given to him by the Disciplinary Authority only after recording the findings of guilt.
The division bench said the HC had already in March 2016 decided on the legal issue regarding giving a 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 Prasad liberty to respond to the disagreement note within four weeks.