S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIR MAN):-Muhammad Iqbal, Constable No. 359 of District Police, Sahiwal, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab .Service Tribunals Act, 1974, -and has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 be set aside and those of respondent No. 2 modified and a direction be issued to the respondents to restore the appellant on List B- I from the date of its removal and to restore the increments as well.
3. Brief facts of the case are that during the month of July, 1978, the appellant was posted as Naib-Moharrir at P. S. Shahbhore of Sahiwal District. At that time one Nur Hassan was posted as Head Constable while Mazhar Abbas posted as A.S.I. And Muhammad Raza Shah was posted as S.H.O. The name of the appellant at the relevant time had been placed on promotion list B-I since April, 1976. It so happened that on the night of 6-7- 1978, the rest of the officials happened to be out of police station and the appellant was left Incharge by virtue of his being Naib-Moharrir. In the police lock-up, two accused persons namely Mummi and Amin were confined.
The appellant arranged Sentries on duties from 6 p. m. To 6 a.m. In the following order:---
1. 6 p.m. To 10 p.m. Appellant himself.
2. 10 p.m. To 2 a.m.M. Rafiq Constable No. 318.
3. 2 a.m. To 6 a.m.M. Ashraf Constable No. 976.
However in the early morning it came to the notice that both the accused had eseaped from the lock-up at 4 a.m. Or so after making the hole in the lock-up wall. A case F.I.R. No 71/78 under section 223/224, P.P.C. Was registered by S H.O./S.I. Muhammad Raza Shah. Besides the said criminal proceedings, S. P. Sahiwal, respondent No. 3, served a notice on the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against departmentally under the general proceedings as provided under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted reply to the said show-cause notice and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 22-7- 1978. The appellant filed appeal to the respondent No. 2 who was pleased to reinstate the appellant but stopped 3 years increments with the direction that his name should also be struck of from List B-I. The appellant made a representation to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on various grounds by submitting that it was necessary, in the interest of justice, that some Departmental Inquiry should have been held to elucidate all the circumstances connected with the escape but in the case of the appellant, no such inquiry was held and in this manner directions laid down in PR 16.34 have not been observed. It has been further argued that the appellant did what he possibly could do, by detailing two other Constables on duties after performing the same in the early hours of the night, therefore, he would be not responsible in any manner in the escape. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the factual escape took place while Muhammad Ashraf Constable was performing the duties, therefore, the real culprit, if at all, would be Muhammad Ashraf and not the appellant.
While arguing his case, learned counsel has pointed out that the appellant was F.A. With more than 11 years clean service and the punishment so imposed upon him, was neither justified nor in consonance with the lapse so attributed to him. According to learned counsel this would ruin his career and will materially diminish chances of promotion and advancement in life. He also made a grievance that Messrs Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Rafiq who were Incharge during the period the alleged incident had occurred, have been dealt with leniently whereas the appellant has been punished out of pro--portion.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has supported the order of D.I.-G. On the ground that he has already shown a great leni--ency by reinstating the appellant, whereas he was dismissed by the competent Authority. In this manner the prevailing circumstances have been fully considered in his favour, therefore, the grievance against the said order was absolutely unjustified.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the competent authority punished the appellant for lack of supervision being Incharge of the police station at- the relevant time when he fully knew that the night was dark and there was no electricity in the police station. The D.I.-G. In para. 3 of his order has observed that since the appellant had performed his duties and detailed others, his omission was somewhat mitigated. However, he has agreed with the views of the competent that the appellant was guilty of certain omission on his part. The fact I of the matter is that the appellant was enjoying a senior position at the relevant time being Naib-- Moharrir, therefore, certain extra ,responsibilities were attached with his office. Of course he did detail two constables on duties after he himself performed his part, yet the situation required of him extra vigilance to see that the persons so detailed by him were doing their job vigilantly and the undertrials in the Police lock-up were not out for some mischief. A prudent Police Officer with his education and length of service, -would certainly anticipate .Such like events of escape when the night would be dark and no electricity was available to keep watch over' the prisoners. We have all sympathies with the education of the appellant and his length of service but at the same time we do agree with the competent authority as well as with the D.I.-G.
Police that he was required to do something more than the ordinary Constables on duty being Incharge of the station at that time.
8. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the well considered order of D.I -G. Police who has already shown leniency towards the appellant by restoring him in service but with certain minor punishment which he was competent to do so.
9. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. The parties will bear their own costs.