1984 anti-Sikh riots: SC orders pensionary benefits to cop charged with dereliction of duty

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted reprieve to a retired police officer who was charged with abdication of duty and misconduct during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and granted him consequential benefits including revision of pension.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra allowed the appeal of Durga Prasad, then station house officer (SHO) of Kingsway Camp Police Station, and said arrests were made, lathicharge done and firing resorted to.

The top court was hearing a plea filed by Prasad challenging an order of the Delhi high court which directed a disciplinary authority to issue a fresh order of punishment against him.

Prasad was accused by his department of dereliction of duty or negligence in controlling those riots in the area under his command as the SHO.

"Considering the limited force available, focus was on saving crucial installations and potential targets. The immediate senior of the appellant, who appeared as a defense witness, stated that the appellant did a commendable job with the limited resources available with him," the bench noted.

The top court noted, importantly, the witness was also part of the team responsible for controlling riots but was not chargesheeted.

"Therefore, the inquiry officer relied on his statement. Most importantly, there was no evidence to show that the force was sitting idle." In May 1985, Prasad was promoted as the assistant commissioner of police but later a committee was constituted to look into the failure of the police in effectively tackling the 1984 riots.

When the inquiry officer submitted a report on the charges against him, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings and a fresh chargesheet was filed against Prasad.

The decision was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by Prasad.

The tribunal in 2000 asked the authority to issue a fresh note of disagreement and serve the same on the petitioner.

In 2001, the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note calling upon the appellant to submit his representation within 15 days of its receipt. This was again challenged before CAT which dismissed his plea.

When the matter reached the high court, it directed the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh order of punishment against the police officer.

Elaborating on the report of the inquiry committee, the top court said regarding non-use of tear gas shells, first there ought to have been evidence that they were available for use.

"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."

The court said it was common knowledge that rifle bullets travelled at a high velocity and could pierce both the target and unintended targets.

"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," it added.

The apex court held, "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."