2006 PLP 554 (SCMR)

JAVED IQBAL, J.

Pursuant to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on account of gross negligence penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by D.P.O. Mianwali vide order dated 28-6-2002. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which was also rejected and assailed by way of appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but with no avail. It is to be noted that a criminal case under sections 222, 223 and 224, P.P.C. was also got lodged against the petitioner as well as the other accused at Police Station Mitha Tiwana on 3-1-2002 but were acquitted by learned Magistrate Section 30, Khushab vide order, dated 10-3-2004.

2. Show-cause notice which was given to the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy:-- "You constables Sami Ullah No.1156; Hidayat Ullah No.86 and Khan Bahadur No.301, District Mianwali did not perform your official duty in a proper and disciplined manner in that as per report of D.S.P.S.D.P.O., Mitha Tiwana received from the Superintendent of Police, Khushab vide his Memo. No.30/PA, dated 5-1-2001, on 2-1-2002, you were detailed to collect two criminals namely Muhammad Ramzan son of Allah Ditta caste Mitra resident of Harnoli involved in case F.I.R. No.92 dated 21-8-1999 under section 302/34, P.P.C. 7-A.T.A., Police Station Piplan from Central Jail, Mianwali to produce them in the Court of Special Judge, A.T.A. Sargodha. Official Vehicle No.4579/MIA was provided to escort the prisoners. H.C. Shahbaz Khan No.93 was driver of the said vehicle. The learned Special Judge convicted, and sentenced them to undergo 14/17 years' R.I. each. Thereafter, you along with above named convicts proceeded to Mianwali. At about 8-45 p.m., the vehicle was intentionally stopped near Tanveer Petroleum in the area of Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab in order to facilitate the convict Muhammad Ramzan to escape from police custody . As a .result of your mala fide intention, he managed to escape from our lawful custody. In this regard, case F.I.R. No.2, dated 3-1-2002, under sections 222/223/224, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab against you and other police officials which is under investigation and you have been placed under suspension. It is thus, evident from the facts and circumstances that you all in connivance with each other facilitated the above named Muhammad Ramzan to escape from your lawful custody and also did not make any fruitful efforts to arrest him which amounts to grave misconduct under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, warranting disciplinary action against you.

3. Heard Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly argued that no evidence whatsoever has come on record on the basis whereof petitioner could be held responsible for the escape of convict Muhammad Ramzan which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Police Department as well as learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service after having clean acquittal from the criminal case got registered against him on the same charges in violative of the dictum as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Aslam v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1998 SCMR 1993.

4. We have carefully examined the contention as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, thrashed out the entire record and perused the judgment impugned carefully. After having gone through the entire record we are of the view that the factum of gross negligence has been proved. A comprehensive inquiry was got conducted and the' petitioner was found responsible not only for gross negligence but active connivance and facilitation which resulted in the escape of convict Muhammad Ramzan who was convicted and sentenced to death with 14 years' R.I. by the learned Special Judge, A.T.A., Sargodha in case got registered vide F.I.R. No.92, dated 21-8-1992 under section 302/34, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There is no denying the fact that custody of convict Muhammad Ramzan was handed over to the armed police party with official Vehicle No.4579/MIA to 'escort the prisoners and petitioner was admittedly the member of that police party. The vehicle was stopped without any justification to facilitate the escape of Muhammad Ramzan on a lame pretext that he wanted to ease himself. The vehicle could have been taken to Mitha Tiwana Police Station to avoid any untoward incident which smacks of mala fides. The, police party duly armed with sophisticated weapons remained highly negligent and acted in a very irresponsible manner and failed to perform their duties diligently and with vigilance which speaks a valume about their conduct. How an unarmed and handcuffed convict could have been escaped without the collective connivance and facilitation of police party. It cannot be a case of negligence simpliciter as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner. It hardly matters that the handcuffs of escaped convict was buckled with whose belt as they all were responsible for the safe custody of convicts and being vicarious liability no individual member of the police party can be absolved from its responsibility. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court that after having clean acquittal from the criminal case there was absolutely no lawful justification for the initiation of B disciplinary proceedings which culminated into dismissal from service for the reason 'that result of criminal proceedings would have absolutely no bearing on merits of the case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Deputy I.-G. Police v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134; Muhammad Ayub v. Chairman E.B. WAPDA PLD 1987 SC 195 and Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police 1990 SCMR 1556. In our view the procedural lapses are not very serious and no prejudice whatsoever has been caused against the petitioner. No question of law of public, importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./S-9/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.