1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant, Sana Ullah, was posted as Assistant Moharrir in Police Station Chakwal, District Jhelum, when he was dismissed from service vide order dated 30th September, 1975 by the S.P. Jhelum, on the charge of negligence, as four under trials escaped from the lock‑up of the Police Station on the night of 7th January, 1975. An appeal against that order brought by the appellant was dismissed by the D.I.G Police. Rawalpindi, on 20th March, 1976. The appellant filed revision petition with the I. G. Police and later, a mercy petition to the same authority, both of which were turned down vide orders dated 24th August, 1976 and 25th October 1976, respectively.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the night of 7th January 1975 the appellant was the only Police Officer of sufficient seniority on duty as all those superior to him were absent from duty or on sick leave. Four undertrial prisoners in the lock‑up, who had earlier been surrepti tiously supplied by their visiting relatives with an iron bar, managed to dig a hole under the lock‑up gate with this bar and escaped. The appellant, being then the officer-in‑charge, instead of supervising the watch over the lock‑up, was asleep when the culprits broke away. After an enquiry, the appellant was found guilty and punished with dismissal from service. The learned counsel for the appellant has impugned the dismissal order on the ground that rule 16.38 sub‑rule (1) of the Police Rules requires that in case of any penal offence by a Police Officer, the District Magistrate con cerned shall be informed and he (the IM) will decide whether the investiga tion will be conducted by a Police Officer or a Magistrate. In the present case, according to the learned counsel this mandatory provision was no observed and, therefore, all the actions that followed were null and void in the eyes of law. The parties were heard and the record perused. The learned Prosecu ting Inspector from the Central Police Office defended the impugned order by stating that the case did not attract the provisions of sub‑rule (1) of rule 16.38 because the rule relied upon by the appellant was operative only in case where the commission of an offence by a Police Officer is in connexion with his official relations with the public. The appellant's offence was purely in the performance of his official duties and was in no way connected with the public. As the contention of the Prosecuting Inspector is well founded, we agree that it was not necessary to inform the District Magistrate in this case. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that two other officials who in the enquiry were found equally guilty of negligence of duty, were later re‑instated in. service and that the appellant alone bad been discri minated. We are afraid this is little justification to exonerate the appellant. His performance had to be judged on it own merits and not in relation to that of others who were admittedly not present at the relevant time at the scene of escape. In view of the above, the appeal carries no weight, and is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.