1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Murad Ali Ex‑ASI No.197/P was removed from service vide impugned order dated $‑11‑1986 by respondent No.2 on account of the grave misconduct and negligence in the performance of his duties. His appeal also met the same fate at the hands of respondent No.2 so the present appeal which reveals that he joined the Police Department as A.S.I. in the year 1977 and during his posting at Police Station Takhat Bai he was charged for negligence due to which the murder of one Farooq Khan at the Police Station by one Muhammad Farid Khan took place, who was summoned by the appellant to record his statement in case F. I. R. No.382 dated 31‑8‑1986 under section 307/34, P.P.C. Since the appellant had to join the S.H.O. in the patrol duty he asked the said witness to wait for him in the Police Station, when in the meanwhile Farooq Khan, guest of the A.S.H.O. arrived there and was done to death by the said Muhammad Farid Khan before his arrival to the Police Station. The appellant explained his position to the respondent No.2 but despite his innocence his services were dispensed away quite illegally and on mere surmises and conjectures. The enquiry was not conducted judicially, he was not supplied with the copy of the report, he did not take part in the earlier judicial enquiry which formed the basis of the impugned action and he was condemned unheard. Respondents denied the allegations, levelled by the appellant by submitting the written statement. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was denied the opportunity to participate in the judicial enquiry and the said judicial enquiry was used as weapon of punishment against him. His role in the murder of Farooq Khan nowhere facilitated the occurrence. On the other hand learned Prosecuting Inspector argued that the grave negligence of the appellant in detaining the witness Muhammad Farid resulted in the murder of an innocent person namely Farooq Khan. If the appellant had earlier recorded his statement, then the occurrence would have been easily avoided. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments and have. carefully perused the record. In our opinion, the punishment awardeG to the appellant was incompatible to the negligence exhibited by him. A.S.H.O., Iqbal, his senior was with him, when they left for the gasht and in his presence, he directed Muhammad Farid to wait for him till his return from gasht. If the appellant was not aware of the irregularity, his senior was duty bound to check him. Besides this, Moharrir and Guard were also present in the Police Station and they were under the law/rules bound to be alert especially when two outsiders‑‑One Muhammad Farid and the other Farooq Khan were also present in the Police Station. Muhammad Farid, committed the murder of Farooq Khan with a razor and there is nothing on the record as to how he came across it in the Police Station. It is a settled law that punishment must be appropriate, compatible and reasonable qua the act or omission for which an accused‑official is charged. In the instant case, the alleged misconduct by the accused‑official was that he detained a witness namely Muhammad Farid in the Police Station and himself departed for patrol duty in the company of his superior officer Mr. Iqbal and came back to the scene when the said witness has already committed the murder of the guest of the A.S.H.O. It implies that he was in no way instrumental in the commission of the offence of murder of Farooq Khan and the only fault for which he can be attributed was that he made the witness sit and wait for him in the Police Station. If he had not done this the said mishap would have been avoided. The punishment awarded to the appellant was grave and excessive than the act /omission done by him. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellant should be awarded the lesser penalty and we recommend censure in the case of the appellant. By accepting the present appeal in the terms mentioned above we set aside the impugned order alongwith all the back benefits to the appellant. M.Y.H./63/Sr.N. Appeal allowed.