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 – 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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.