DURGA PRASAD versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1572 · Decided: 23-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.