MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Allah Noor ex-Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service, Tribunal Act of 1974 against the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi dated 18th October, 1979, whereby he was dismissed from service and against appellate order passed by the deputy Inspector---General of Police. Rawalpindi dated 29th Juno, 1980.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and he be re- instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted at police Station Industrial Area, he was served with a notice under rule 6(3)(1) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 by way of General Police proceedings to show cause as to why one of the major penalties including dismissal from service be not imposed on him, on the ground that the accused Muhammad Razzaq who was arrested in case under section 307/506/188/148/149, P.P.C., escaped from the custody of Muhammad Iqbal and the appellant when they were escorting the accused to X-Ray Room. The grounds of action are reproduced here under for the sake of convenience:- "Accused Muhammad Razzaq son of Muhammad Khan, caste Gujjar resident of Shamsabad, P. S. Industrial Area, Islamabad who was arrested in case F. I. R. No. 74 dated 24th September, 1979, under section 307/506/188/148/149, P. P. C., P. S. Industrial Area, was admitted in District Headquarters Hospital Rawalpindi. You were deputed from the Police Station to set as a member of the guard detained to keep vigilance over the accused. On 27th September, 1979 due to your inefficiency the accused escaped from the custody of Muhammad Iqbal No. 3040 and yourself when both of you were escorting the accused to X-Ray Room. The accused was sent in the X-Ray Room while both of you kept standing outside the said room facilitating the chance of escape to the accused."
4. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice and was heard in person by the S. S. P.
Who dismissed him from service. His appeal to the D.I.-G. Also failed. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.' It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the said accused Muhammad Razzaq was admitted in Room No. 1 in the Surgical Ward of Civil Hospital. Rawalpindi and a Police Guard consisting of a Head Constable, the appellant and Muhammad Iqbal, Constable was deputed for duty there in order to refrain-the accused from absconding. It is an admitted fact that on 27th September, 1979. The Head Constable after getting the accused properly handcuffed entrusted the accused to the appellant and Muhammad Iqbal for taking him for X-Ray in the X-Ray Room. He submitted that the Medical Officer Incharge of the Hospital directed them to remove the handcuff and send the accused in X-Rays room for X-Ray which they complied with and remained standing outside the X-Ray Room. After some time when the doctor came out and they enquired from him about the accused, he informed them that the accused was inside the X-Ray Room and when they entered the room they found that the accused had made good his escape through the back door of the X-Ray Room. As such he has submitted that he was not at all guilty of negligence and dereliction of duty and as such not guilty any misconduct. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the Medical Officer had given any such direction to the appellant. He has submitted without conceding that even if these instructions were given by the Medical Officer the appellant was not supposed to comply with the instructions which were against the rule. The learned D. A. Has also submitted that the accused were grossly negligent in removing the hand--cuffs of the accused and sending him in the X-Ray Room without taking any precaution against the escape. Had the appellant been vigilant, the escape could have been averted and as such the appellant has been rightly punished.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone carefully through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the accused Muhammad Razzaq was entrusted to the appellant and his fellow constable Muhammad Iqbal and was escorted to the X-Ray Room under the supervision of Head-Constable Ghalib Ali. The said Head Constable went to ease himself after handing over the key of handcuffs to the Constables.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Medical officer had directed them to remove the handcuff's and as such we cannot presume that the appellant had removed handcuffs under his directions. It is admitted position by the parties that the accused was entrusted to the appellant and his fellow Constable. According to the rules they were not supposed to remove the handcuffs, not the appellant has been able to point out any such rules or instructions under which he was autho--rised to remove the handcuffs for the said purpose. Even if we presume that the Medical Officer had given any such instructions to the appellant and his fellow Constable to send the accused in the X-Ray Room for X-Ray after removing his handcuffs, even then the appellant cannot be absolved from the responsibility to ensure that the accused did not escape from their custody. We feel that the greater responsibility was cast upon the Police Guard to be more vigilant and to take more care and precautions to prevent the escape. In the circumstances of the present case, one of the constable could have accompanied the accused to the X-Ray Room or otherwise could have watch the back door of the room to prevent the escape In these circumstances there is no alter--native for us but to hold that the appellant was highly negligent in the performance of his duty and that the escape took place due to the fault of the Police Guard including the appellant.
7. In view of the above analysis we are of the considered opinion that the charge of misconduct has been proved against the appellant and, the impugned orders have rightly been passed against him. As such, there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such. However, there will be no order as to costs.