1. ' GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).-This appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal from service.
2. ' The appellant was a constable in Police Department. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Sub-Inspector of Police accompanied by the appellant and one another Constable Lal Wazir were directed to escort Suleman Buledi, who was a prisoner from Quetta to Jacobabad by train. On the way while the train was still in motion the prisoner told the police party to allow him to go to the latrine in order to answer the call of nature. Both the constables were directed to take the prisoner to the latrine. They complied.
3. ' When the prisoner entered the latrine he told the appellant and the other constable to leave the chain of the hand-cuffs to allow him to shut the door as otherwise he would be exposed to the passengers travelling in the same compartment. His request was granted but he was told not to bolt the door from inside.
4. ' Since he did not come out for a pretty long time the two constables opened the door and found the prisoner absent having escaped from the window of the latrine which he had broken.
5. ' The S. I. P. As well as the appellant and the other constable were charge-sheeted. Their explanation was not found satisfactory. The S. I. P. Was reduced in rank while the appellant and the other constable were dismissed from service.
6. ' The appellant filed an appeal to D.I.-G. But it was dismissed. So the present appeal was filed.
7. ' The appellant has pleaded that apart from the fact that the Incharge S.I.P. Was responsible for the escape of the prisoner the other constable was mainly at fault as he had escorted the prisoner to the latrine and allowed him to close the door without holding the chain of the handcuffs. He also completely disassociated himself from the steps taken to offer an opportunity to the prisoner to escape. He also denied having escorted the prisoner to the latrine or having been asked to escort the prisoner to the latrine.
8. ' On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate General invited our attention to paras. 3 and 4 of the explanation offered to the show-cause notice which dispels his contention. These paras. Read as under :
(3) That on 14th August, 1978, the S.H.O. Directed S. I. Muhammad Ibrahim alongwith I and PC Lal Wazir to take accused Suleman Buledi to Jacobabad for Police remand as well as recovery of stolen car. In compliance we left Quetta for Jacobabad by Passenger Train departing from Quetta at about 14.30 hours. The accused Suleman Buledi was properly hand-cuffed and was in our custody. On reaching between Landsay and Bailput the accused wanted to pay the call of nature.
9. On this we informed S. I. Muhammad Ibrahim who allowed the accused to pay the call of nature. He (accused) went inside the Bath room. There was rush in the compartment, hence so many passengers were seated just in front of the gate of bath room. Thus on the request of accused, the accused was allowed to'shut the door but he was not allowed to bolt the same. The accused took advantage due to my misfortune and made his escape good. He made his escape good by removing the glass of the ventilator and slipped away.
(4) That the escape of accused was due to my misfortune and the same is highly regretted. 1 shall be more careful in future. I want to be heard in person. Under the circumstances mentioned above, it is humbly prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken in my case and I may also kindly be given a chance.
10. ' I beg to remain Sir, ' Yours most obediently, ' Sd/-Muhammad Farid PC 568 (Under suspension) of Ferozabad PSK.
11. The bare perusal of the aforesaid explanation amply supports the contention raised by the learned Assistant Advocate-General. He admitted that he and the other constable escorted the prisoner to the latrine and at his request he was allowed to shut the door. It is also evident by allowing shutting the door, the chain of the hand-cuffs was not held by either of the constables and the prisoner was left free to accomplish the design to escape on the pretext of going to the latrine to answer the call of nature. The explanation itself is enough to hold the appellant guilty, of gross negligence and failure to observe the Rules. Thus the plea taken by the appellant before us is false and contradictory to the explanation offered to the show-cause notice. So no exception can be taken to the view taken by the superior officers and the punishment was fully justified and it does not call for interference.
12. ' In the result the appeal is dismissed.