S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Sikandar Hayat Cheema, Assistant Superintendent Jail, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, for setting aside order dated 12-1-1986 passed by respondent No. 2 re-instating the appellant in service without back benefits and with penalty of withdrawal of three increments already earned by him. He has impleaded the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore, and the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned order set aside and restore all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was absent from duty as well as from Jail premises on 3-8-1984. During his absence a serious riot took place at District Jail, Gujrat, followed by escape of 28 prisoners. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet alongwith statement of allegations, to which he submitted his reply. An inquiry was held in this case and ultimately a show-cause notice was issued by the Inspector-General of Prisons in the name of the appellant on 30-8-1984.
The appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice. The Authority acting as Authorised Officer vide his order dated 12-12-1984, found that what had happened, would be avoided, if the appellant would have been present and had not left the premises without permission of the superiors and finding him guilty of negligence and inefficiency, he removed him from service, with immediate effect. The appellant filed appeal before the Home Secretary, Punjab.
Respondent No.2, who vide his order dated 15-1-1986, modified the punishment of removal from service to penalty of withdrawal of three increments earned by him as Assistant Superintendent Jail and re-instated him in service without any back benefits. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that penalty of withdrawal of increments already earned and forfeiture of all back benefits is not a penalty provided by the relevant rules. He has submitted that the appellant has been discriminated as another Assistant Superintendent Jail who was also not present was let of scot free whereas the appellant has been inflicted with a punishment. It has been submitted that the appellant has 13 years long unblemished record of service but the same has not been considered while dealing with the case. According to him the appellant left the station, of course without leave, under the impelling circumstances that the mother-in-law was on the death bed and ultimately died.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department submitted by the I.-G. Prisons and has submitted that withdrawal of increments already earned means reduction in pay with three times, therefore, the same was justified. With regard to the merits of the case, he has submitted that appellant had no business /authority to absent himself from Jail premises without prior permission of the competent authority, therefore, the Jail remained without him on the fateful day when the escape occurred. He has argued that the penalty of the appellant was commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and find that as far as the merit of the case is concerned, It is established on record and rather admitted by the appellant that due to sudden and serious illness of his mother-in-law he had no alternative but to leave the station for Wazirabad, a contention which is hardly tenable in view of the fact that he belongs to a disciplined force of Jail and being a seasoned officer should have realised that he could not leave the premises of Jail with prior permission of his superiors. In this manner, we hardly find any justification for his absence although the circumstances might be impelling and of course it is on record that his mother-in-law was seriously ill and ultimately died. However, the appellant's plea that the punishment awarded to him by the Home Secretary, Punjab for withdrawal of three increments already earned by him was not permissible under the rules, we find that the pronouncement is not happily worded and has thus infringed the rules so provided in this respect.
The modification could be of stoppage of increments without cumulative effect but the increments already earned cannot be withdrawn under the rules. This being so we modify and correct the punishment so awarded by the learned Inspector-General of Prisons dated 15-1-1986, stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. With this modification the order is maintained. There will be no order as to costs.
A.A./121/Sr.P.