ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Ghulam Mustafa ex-Constable has filed this appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal in which he has impleaded, Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range and Addl. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
3. By virtue of this appeal he had prayed that the impugned orders issued by Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and subsequential appellate orders of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, and Addl. Inspector-General of Police, Lahore be set aside.
4. Facts of the case are that an accused Bashir alias Bashira, son of Allah Bux, resident of Mohallah Islamabad; Gujranwala was involved in case F. I. R. No 471, dated 29-9-1979 and F. I. R. No. 514, dated 28-10-1974. On 12-1-1980 he was brought from District Jail, Gujranwala to "Bakshikhana" for producing him in the Court of Sheikh Saleem Iqbal, Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwala. After adjournment in the said case, he alongwith other under-trial prisoners was sent back to District Jail, Gujranwala from "Bakshikhana". On the way the under-trial Bashir alias Bashira managed to escape from the custody of his escort alongwith handcuffs. An enquiry into the escape of said under-trial prisoner was carried out by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Gujranwala.
The D. S. P. In his enquiry report held the main responsibility, for the escape on Constable Ghulam Mustafa and also Muhammad Boota, Head Constable, and Muhammad Yousaf, A. S. I. Were held responsible for the negligence in the performance of their duties. All the three accused were suspended due to their negligence in the performance of their duties and show-cause notice was served under the Punjab Police (E & D) 1975 Rules. The reply to the show cause-notice was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and all the accused were heard in person on 13-2-1980. All the three accused were held responsible for the negligence and careless--ness and were dismissed with immediate effect from service by Superin--tendent of Police, Gujranwala vide his order No. 8644-48, dated 19-2-1980. Their appeal was also rejected by Deputy .Inspector- General of Police, Gujranwala Range, vide order No.. 16344/L. C., dated Lahore 20-8-1980 up-- holding the orders passed by S. P., Gujranwala. They filed revision petition to the Addl. Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, and the revision petition of appellant was rejected vide his order No. 17907JM-5, dated 4-7-1981. However, the revision petitions of the remaining two accused were accepted and they were re-instated into service. Hence this appeal.
S. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record very carefully. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant relying on the main argument that under rule 18.44 of the Punjab Police Rules at least one Sub-Inspector, two Head Constables and 16 Constables should invariably be detailed to escort prisoners numbering from 31 to 50, by road where the Police Stations are not more than 15 miles apart ; but in the instant case there was only one A. S. I., one Head Constable, and 6 Constables, who had been detailed to escort 36 under-trial prisoners. This was not only a Violation of rules but it was humanly impossible to escort 36 prisoners by one A. S. I., Head Constable and 6 Constables, as deputed an this case. Furthermore it has been contended that there were 10 under-trial prisoners' chained in the belt of the appellant including the escapee. This was not correct as it was not possible to put the chains of 10 under-trial prisoners in the belt of appellant. It was also argued that the appellant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses so produced against him. Thus proper enquiry was not conducted as required under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 and thus the appellant was not allowed to defend him properly. While these arguments were being made by the learned counsel of the appellant, the appellant himself came forward and pleaded that this under-trial prisoner (Bashir alias Bashira) was never given to him for escort and he was falsely implicated in this case by the Line Officer, not being on good terms with him. On the other hand learned District Attorney argued that it is clear from the Daily Diary report No. 16 of judicial guard, District Court, Gujranwala, 35 under-trial prisoners were actually handed over to Ghulam Mustafa Constable and his other colleagues. This is also borne out from the statements of other constables/colleagues and the enquiry report. As far as the arguments by the le2irned counsel for appellant that sufficient staff was not deputed to escort the under-trial prisoners, District Attorney submitted that only one road intervenes in between the premises of District Court, Gujranwala and the Jail. The distance between these two places is few yards. As such the rule relied upon the appellants learned counsel is not attracted to the present case and escort staff provided was more than sufficient for escorting under-trials.
While repelling the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that under the circumstances of the present case the procedure by way of General Police, proceedings was not called for and was arbitrary, it has been argued by the learned District Attorney that in the instant case the matter did not require elaborate enquiry on the basis of documentary evidence consisting of the Daily Diary and register of the Guard Room, in addition to the statements of the concerned police constables. As such the competent authority had exercised his judicious discretion by resorting to the provision of rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. He further argued that the appellant was given the opportunity to defend himself while preliminary enquiry was held and also he was afforded an opportunity by Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala to be heard in person and clear his position. Thus he has been given full opportunities to defend himself properly.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments addressed by the parties and have also consulted the record carefully. We agree with the arguments put forward by the learned District Attorney 'that sufficient staff was provided for escorting the 36 under-trial prisoners as the distance between the District Courts and District Jail, Gujranwala was hardly few yards. In spite of the fact that documentary evidence consisting of the Daily Diary and Register of Guard Room, was available with the compe--tent authority yet lie thought advisable to hold a preliminary enquiry to arrive at just decision of the case and to provide an opportunity to the appellant to explain his defence. Thus the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunities to defend himself and no miscarriage of justice has been caused to the appellant by adopting the procedure laid down in rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 i.e. General Police Proceedings. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the appellant was inconsistent in his plea of defence. On the one hand he has taken up the plea that sufficient police escort was not provided for taking under-trials to the Jail while on the other hand he has submitted that the escapee was not at all given to him. This contradictory plea also goes a long way to depict his guilty mind. It is also borne out from the record that when it was discovered in the Jail that Bashir alias Bashira accused has absconded from the custody of the appellant and he was questioned about this incident he threw the key of the handcuffs of escapee (which escapee had taken along--with him) near the room of the "Maharrir Kote" of the fail, and went away. This fact also establishes that the under-trial prisoner was in the custody of the appellant.
7. In view of what we have stated above we conclude that Ghulam Mustafa Constable has rightly been dismissed for the proved misconduct and there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.