ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Muhammad Ramzan ex-Cons. Table, No. 7091, Police Post Mayo Hospital, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. --
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 4-6-1980, 28- 1-1981 and 25-7-1981 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with effect from 4-6- 1980 with full benefit of pay and allowance etc., costs of appeal be awarded to the appellant.
3. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Razman ex-Constable was posted on petrol duty in Mayo Hospital on the night between 19/20-2-1980 alongwith Constable Ghulam Rasool. The appellant, along--with Constable Ghulam Rasool, rushed to Telephone Exchange room of Mayo Hospital, Lahore, on receiving information that a bad character woman was present in the Telephone Exchange room. They forcibly got opened the room of the telephone Operator Tahir Shah, because he was giving no response from inside of the room to them. On entering the room, no woman was found but they found a person sitting with Tahir Shah Telephone Operator later on known to be Mullah Muzaffar a noto--rious proclaimed offender, with 12 bore gun. The appellant questioned him about the gun for which he claimed to possess a licence granted by a Political Agent of Tribal Area. They did not believe him and further pointed out that despite a licence no one could carry with him a gun since section 144 was in force. They asked him to accompany them to police station. On his refusal, Constable Ghulam Rasool went to Police post to apprise A. S: I.
Muhammad Bashir Khan incharge of the Police Post, leaving the appellant with Mullah Muzaffar and Tahir Shah, telephone operator to guard him. On arrival of A. S.-I., Muhammad Bashir Khan, Incharge of Police, Post, Mayo Hospital, it was found that Mullah Muzaffar had already escaped apprehending danger, leaving his gun in the telephone exchange room, under the pretext of easing himself. The appel--lant and the other constable had behaved very foolishly and cowardly as a result of which a notorious P. O. Mullah Muzaffar escaped. The appellant having been proved guilty of misconduct and negligence of duties, was dismissed from service. His appeals by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were also rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. The counsel for the appellant argued that Mullah Muzaffar had not been proclaimed offender by the Punjab Police. He was a stranger to the appellant and had no knowledge of being proclaimed offender of Karachi Police. The appellant could not judge that this person would slip away, leaving his costly gun for which he had claimed to be having a lincence. The appellant allowed him to go to the bath room on the surety of Tabir Shah telephone operator, who was an official of Mayo Hospital and known to him. The appellant could never think that Telephone operator would betray him. This was a misjudgment of mistake in good faith which lead Mullah Muzaffar to escape. The counsel for appellant further argued that he should not have been treated so harshly by his Department for act which was a result of misjudgment and mistake in good faith. Moreover no regular enquiry was conducted for giving an opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. On the other hand the District Attorney controverted these arguments saying this is not correct that Mullah Muzaffar, P. O. Was not known to the appellant. Even otherwise a person who was behaving in a dubious-suspicious manner should have been handled likewise as desired by law i. e., person should have been arrested and produced before the senior officer. Moreover, the appellant was not a new-comer in the Department, be had been enlisted in 1976. He should have not allowed the P. O.
To go out on the pretext of easing himself, which pretext is most well known to all the police men.
Thus, his mis--conduct and negligence is proved beyond doubts. He was proceeded pro--perly under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. A show-cause notice was served upon him. His reply was duly considered by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore. He was also heard in person, before his dismissal.
5. We have given anxious thought to the arguments put forward by the appellant's counsel, the learned District Attorney and have consulted the record very carefully. Appendix --D' with his appeal is a copy of an appeal of the appellant made to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police.
Lahore Range, Lahore, wherein the appellant has himself admitted that on 19-2-1980, the appellant alongwith other Constable Ghulam Rasool got an information that some sort of bad character woman was in the room of telephone operator namely Tahir Shah in the Hospital, we the both constables rushed toward the room of the telephone operator and forcibly got opened room of Telephone Operator Tahir Shah, because he was giving no response from inside to the appellant.
They entered the room but found a person sitting with Tahir Shah Telephone Operator alongwith 12 bore gun. Thus the matter of clearly dubious/suspicious nature and should have been handled likewise by them as required by law. The appellant was made responsible to guard this person while other constable had gone to bring the A. S. I. The appellant allowed the P. O. To go out on the pretext of making water and from where he slipped away. The negligence in performing of his duties for not properly guarding the P. O., resulted in his escape. Thus his misconduct and negligence in performing his duties is proved beyond any doubt.
6. A show-cause notice was served upon him under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. His explanation was duly considered and also afforded an opportunity to be heard in person before dismissing him by respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 gave due consideration to the facts of the case before rejecting his appeal. We have also checked the service record of the appellant.
He had about 4 years service at the time of his dismissal and two bad entries during this short period of service. Thus, his service record is also not 'satisfactory.
7. Keeping above facts in view, there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.