' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-- Shaukat All ex-Constable No, 1738, District Police Faisalabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range Sargodha and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 22-9-1980, 15- 9-1981 and the final order dated 6-4-1983 be set aside and he be re-instated in service w,e,f, 22-9- 1980 with full back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted in Police Line, Faisalabad, he was served with a show-cause notice by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad vide his Office No, 105/SCN 1980, on the allegation that one Dildar son of Fazal Muhammad under trial prisoner escaped from his custody at Jaranwala where he was taken for his appearance in the Court. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice. The Superintendent of Police Faisalabad afforded him a personal hearing on 10-6-1980 and after considering all pros and cons of the case dismissed the appellant from service w,e,f, 16-9-1980 vide his order dated 22-9-1980. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was rejected vide order dated 15-9-1981. The appellant again preferred a review petition before the Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore which was considered and filed vide order dated 6-4-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. 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 during the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was revealed that S.I. Wazir Muhammad had allowed 80/90 persons to meet the under trial prisoners and during this time Dildar accused made good his escape leaving the chain of the belt of the appellant. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellant that besides the appellant two more Constables and S.I. Wazir Muhammad were deputed to escort 32 under trial prisoners from the District Jail, Faisalabad for production in the Criminal Courts. Out of these three were sent to the Court of Tehsildar, Jaranwala, while the remaining 29 under trial prisoners were kept waiting near the building of Food Department for production in the relevant Courts under the care of three Constables. It has further been argued that in fact the chain of hand-cuffs of 29 prisoners was interlinked with each other and it was lastly tied in the belt of the appellant as such he was not in a position to prevent the escape being at considerable distance from Dildar. It has lastly been argued that the appellant was not given full opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the law.
5. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the learned District Attorney that the appellant himself had permitted the relatives of the under trials to have unauthorised interview in the absence of S.1. Wazir Muhammad who had gone to Courts to deposit the Jail Warrants of the prisoners. It has been argued that due to this unlawful act and negligence of the appellant the escape was facilitated by the appellant. It has lastly been argued that the proceedings of the enquiry were conducted in the presence of the appellant and he was associated with the same as such the procedure adopted in this case was strictly in accordance with the law.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. The appellant has been found guilty of negligence and has been punished accordingly. The record further reveals that when three under trial prisoners out of 32 were sent to the Court of Tehsildar, the appellant alongwith fellow Constables remained at the spot having guard of the 29 prisoners. It is also clear from the record that the appellant was far away from the under trial prisoner Dildar, who had an `escape and the other two Constables were guarding the under trial prisoners including the escapee. The relatives of the under trial prisoners were also allowed interviews by the S.1. Which created a confusion and resulted in the escape of the under trial prisoner. No doubt that this escape had taken place due to some negligence on the part of the appellant but this fact cannot also be ignored that the under trial prisoner had escaped by removing the cuffs, the chain remained in tact in the belt of the appellant, he was at a distance from the appellant and the other two Constables were guarding., him. Thus, the responsibility of escape of the under trial prisoner cannot only be fixed on the appellant where his other colleagues were also responsible for this mishap.
7. In view of the above analysis of the case we hold that the appellant was, though, negligent to some extent in the performance of his duties, but we consider that the Qunishment so awarded to him is too harsh and is not commensurate with the gravity of the negligence. This being the first act of negligence and inefficiency on the part of the appellant, the extreme penalty of dismissal is not proper and justified.
8. In view of the above history of the case, we set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service and the penalty of dismissal from service be converted/varied as follows:
(1) Censure.
(2) With holding of one annual Increment without future effect.
' The appeal is accepted to the extent as mentioned above. However, the period from the date of his dismissal to his re-instatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due.