New Delhi [India], September 12 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday while hearing a plea moved by a retired police official against whom proceedings were initiated in the year 1992 over the issue of the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the year 1984, observed that the “nation was still bleeding” after the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and allegation of misconduct against him is serious in nature.
The bench of Justice Satish Chander Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on Monday after hearing the concerned submissions granted liberty to the competent authority to pass an appropriate punishment order against a retired police official who was then posted at the Kingsway Camp in 1984, wherein the most unfortunate incident occurred. The police official was later charged for not making preventive detention and not deploying proper force.
The allegation against him was that he failed to deploy proper force in his area, make preventive detentions and take action to disperse the miscreants during the violence.
The bench also decided to set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal against the then police station house master of Kingsway Camp. It said that innocent lives were lost in riots.
“Misconduct is serious in nature, the police official cannot get away on account of his advanced age of 79 years. Innocent people lost their lives. Age will not help,” the bench said.
At the time when one of the most unfortunate tragedies took place “Sikh riots in the NCT area”, the petitioner was charged for not making any preventive detention, not deploying proper force in the area, and not taking any action in dispersing the miscreants.
The charge sheet was issued on March 5, 1990. The petitioner did submit a report. Finally, an enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted a report. He disagreed to the findings of the enquiry officer on August 6, 1999, and also issued a fresh charge sheet.
The court in order said, “In light of the decision of the division bench, this court is of the opinion that the order passed by CAT as well as disciplinary authority is set aside and disciplinary authority is granted liberty to issue a fresh note of disagreement within a period of four weeks to the petitioner and the petitioner is also granted four weeks’ time to file a response to take note of disagreement.” (ANI)