1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 7-9-1980 of the Punjab Services Tribunal ; whereby the petitioner's appeal, against order of his dismissal from service, was dismissed.
2. Some convicts of Indian origin escaped from Central Jail, Mianwali during the period that the petitioner was its Superintendent. It was a case of gross negligence. The prisoners were serving long terms of imprisonment in cases of sensitive nature. The petitioner and several of his colleagues connected with the Superintendent of the jail in question, were suspended. Apart from other enquiries, one was held against the petitioner. He was issued a charge-sheet on 12-9-1978.
3. He submitted a formal reply of mere denial on 28th September, 1978. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The petitioner, after having been afforded opportunity of hearing regarding the inquiry report, was dismissed from service on 23rd of December, 1978. He filed a review petition which having been rejected on, 14-2-1979, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Services Tribunal and the same having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel has, with considerable vehemence, contended that the petitioner having requested the Inquiry Officer to summon 14 witnesses and several documents, without having passed any order on the application in this behalf, concluded the inquiry by examining only one witness from the side of the department, who happened also to be in the list of D. Ws ; and thus the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing. This, as argued, was in contravention of rules 6 and 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. He has also contended that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that there was other material before the Inquiry Officer and that the summoning of the defence evidence requested by the petitioner was on this account not necessary, yet it was essential for the Inquiry Officer to hive allowed the request for.
5. Determining the gravity of the alleged misconduct for purpose of awarding punishment. Lastly, he contended that .In the circumstances when some persons involved in the same matter were awarded much lesser penalties, there was no justification for punishing the petitioner with the extreme service penalty of dismissal.
6. The Tribunal dealt with the question of opportunity of defence (in the context of merits of the case) as follows :- "The appellant has failed to show to us as to how the evidence of the witnesses not examined by the enquiry officer were indispensable in this case. Even during the hearing of the appeal the appellant could not make out the cave in this regard. In our view the enquiry officer had acted properly in dispensing with the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the handling of escape of India prisoners, the conduct of the appellant betrayed his inefficiency and negligence. He failed to act in accordance with the requirements of Jail Manual. Even the directions given by the D. I. G. Prisons in his inspection note dated 26-2-1978 remained uncompiled with. The appellant failed to carry out periodical night inspections or keep the Indian prisoners in segregation. Contrary to the require--ments they were not bar fettered. There were evident deficiencies in watch and guard management, The manner of escape and the circumstances surrounding the escape lend considerable credence to the charges of inefficiency against the appellant." He failed to inform the Police immediately which further worsened the scope of the recapture of the escapees. Thus the allegation of inefficiency and negligence was established against the appellant."
7. It is obvious from what has been stated above that no amount of defence evidence would have disspelled the irrefutable inferences which have been drawn from facts which were either not denied or stood otherwise established by record, rules and ' directions. Sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 no doubt requires the Inquiry Officer to examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or which is sought to be adduced in defence; But, he is not bound to summon each and every document or witness which the accused desires to - -be examined unless, "considers it necessary to do so".
8. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal felt rightly satisfied that the summoning of the evidence in the long list submitted by the accused was not necessary. The approach of the Inquiry Officer in this behalf was unexceptionable. We might add that one test for the determination of the objectivity of the decision, one way or the other, regarding the necessity of summoning a particular piece of evidence is by analogy, indirectly discoverable from rule 7(5). It lays down that when the Inquiry Officer is satisfied that the accused officer is hampering or attempting to hamper the progress of the enquiry, the latter would be administered a warning in this behalf and then the enquiry would be completed in the manner as the officer thus best suited, but subject to the condition that "substantial justice" in done. We are satisfied that even this condition has not been contravened in this case. The petitioner in a written application/explanation had taken the position that the escape of the prisoners from the jail in question was not ''of grave type, but that it was a "normal escape". He also while criticising the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner tried to show that, as he put it, "such like happening is a common phenomenon here, which keeps the staff' on their toes". He also tried to take benefit from the fact asserted by him that "quite a number of identical unpleasant happenings in other jails" could be put in juxtaposition to the escape in question. But it could not be of any avail to him.
9. The entire explanation containing these assertions/admissions undoubtedly create as impression, as if the petitioner bad not much to say in so far as the allegation against him are concerned. What he wanted to emphasize was that this should not lead to an inference that the escape had taken place on account of (what the other accusation implied) the receipt of fabulous sum by him.
10. Looked at in this context, the findings of inefficiency and negligence against the petitioner are neither unjust nor unfair.
11. Learned counsel tried to explain away the above-noted circumstances by a further argument that any admission which might be a foolish act on the part of the petitioner, would not have disspelled the legal necessity of summoning the defence evidence. The petitioner cannot be allowed to explain away the material appearing in his own statements in the manner suggested by the learned counsel and, there is no legal bar to the drawing of proper inferences which flow from his own explanation/assertions.
12. On the question of punishment also no further evidence was necessary in case the petitioner was found to be inefficient and negligent. As to whether the dismissal from service was proper punishment in the case of petitioner as distinguished from some of his other colleagues, was a matter for the punishing authority and the Service Tribunal. The same having been attended to by the Tribunal, leave to appeal cannot be granted on this question as it does not involve any "substantial question of law" which is also "of public importance" which is the requirement of Article 212, whereunder the petitioner has sought leave to appeal.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition at some length, we do not find any force in it and the same is dismissed.