1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant was posted as Superintendent of Police, Gujrat in the year 1984 and there was some turmoil in the District Jail, Gujrat on the night between 3rd/4th August, 1984 as a result of which some of the prisoners made their escape‑good. The authorities held enquiry into the incident and also decided to proceed against the officials including the appellant under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Mr. Mueen Afzal was appointed as an Authorized officer. The appellant was served with charge‑sheet as follows:‑ (i) That on your arrival in Gujrat, at about 9.30 p.m. on 3‑8‑1984, you failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation and to assume effective control of the police force on duty. You did depute SI Hanif to check whether the policemen outside the outer wall of the Jail were performing their duties but thereafter you made no counter or personal check. (ii) That you failed to ask for or check the plans drawn up by the DSP (Hqs) for the security of the jail nor did you prepare any plans yourself for jail security or other contingencies. (iii) That at 10.30 p.m. you spoke on the telephone to the IGP Punjab who asked you to ensure that the jail premises were properly cordoned off and that the jail's security was ensured. You told the IGP that all possible measures had been taken and that the jail would be fully cordoned off "throughout the night." Your assurance was not correct and the jail was, as events showed, not properly cordoned off. (iv) That you failed to physically check or take a round of the jail perimeter in order to ensure that the policemen posted there were alert and adequate; also whether the lighting arrangements were satisfactory. That you did not, on your arrival at the jail, have the F. I. R. initialled which was one of the reasons for the negotiations to continue. This procrastination by you, coupled with the subsequent delay in decision‑making by the D.I.‑G, provided ample opportunity for some of the prisoners to take steps for making a hole in the wall through which the escape was finally made. The appellant submitted a detailed reply thereto and took up the plea that at the start of the incident the appellant was away to Gujranwala to attend a meeting and he came to know of the incident only when he reached back at Gujrat at about 9.00 p.m. The appellant claimed that he took all precautionary measures with the consultation of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, who also arrived at the scene just after one hour as well as the jail and District Authorities.

2. The Authorized Officer decided to adopt summary proceedings and his observations in this behalf read as under:‑ "That the holding of another inquiry was not likely to lead to findings that would facilitate a more reasonable decision regarding the charges against the officer. This latter view was due to several reasons. First, since there were a number of lapses by a large number of Government servants (including the jail department, the police department and, possibly, the magistracy), each one was inclined to defend himself rather than to tell the truth. (In this connection, the most glaring case was that of Rauf Khan, DSP. HQs, who stated that he reached the jail premises at 8.00 p.m. whereas ample evidence is available to show that he arrived at 6.30 p.m.)."

3. The Authorized Officer after hearing the appellant and going through enquiry report concluded that charges Nos. (i) , (ii) and (iv ) stand proved. The relevant portion reads as under:‑ "To conclude, my view is that the fifth charge has not been proved against Sardar Ghulam Mehdi while charge three has been proved against him. In regard to charges one, two and four I am of the view that these may be considered as largely (but not fully) proved. There are, however, certain important mitigating circumstances." The Authorized Officer thereafter proceeded to hold the appellant guilty and imposed the penalty 'withholding the next two increments with cumulative effect'.

4. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the Authorized Officer proceeded to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 20‑4‑1986. The respondent has contested the same, filed parawise comments/ written objections and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondent and gone through the record. The main arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had left Gujrat at 3.00 p.m. on 3rd August, 1984 for Gujranwala to attend a meeting and he remained busy there till about 9.00 p.m. The appellant came to know of the incident only after his return to Gujrat.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the appellant being Chief of the District Police failed to act promptly and diligently and as a result of which the prisoners made their escape good. It is further argued that the Authorized Officer considered the explanation rendered by the appellant but the same was found unsatisfactory. The appellant has failed to establish his innocence on the charges levelled against him.

7. We have considered the arguments of both sides and gone through the record. It is not denied that the appellant was away at Gujranwala to attend the meeting. It is, also vouched by the record that the appellant did not get even a hint about the incidence till his arrival at Gujrat. It was the fault of his second in‑command having not intimated the appellant at Gujranwala otherwise it is a matter of common knowledge that it was not all difficult for the D.S.P. incharge to contact the appellant at Gujranwala and appreciate him of the situation. Secondly, the D.S.P. incharge of the District, in the absence of the appellant, had taken steps that were faulty. But the question is whether the appellant can be punished for the faulty action of his subordinates. We have given deep consideration and find that the appellant has been just punished for no fault of his.

8. There is no doubt that incident created a serious situation of law and order but it does not mean that all the concerned or unconcerned should be indiscriminately punished, the main charge is that the appellant had failed to check up the plan by his D. S. P. The planning having not only been done in the absence and without knowledge of the appellant but also executed and police force deployed. The D.S.P. having deployed the force according to his own understanding and not capability.‑ It was almost impossible for‑ the appellant in it, the circumstances do anything that too at the mid of the night. The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the Authorized Officer are based on conjectures and surmises rather than on facts. On the hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the findings have been correctly recorded in accordance with the result of the two enquiries held in the incident.

9. We have considered the arguments of both sides and also gone through the record and particularly the report of the Authorized Officer and the contention of the appellant is proved at least following paras. of the report of the Authorized Officer that he has proceeded on surmises and conjectures:‑ "Sardar Ghulam Mehdi's argument seems to have some strength in view of the fact that the conditions near the main gat seem to have been fairly tense at the time of his arrival. The precarious circumstances‑ under which the injured warder was removed from inside the jail at about this time, indicates that the S.P. may have been justified in trying to locate himself near the main gate on his arrival at the scene. It appears however, that the show of force by the prisoners may have been a ruse to divert the attention of the authorities from the attempt which was being made to make a hole in the wall. It is possible to argue that Sardar Ghulam Mehdi, as an experienced police officer, ought to have anticipated this possibility and taken appropriate measures. He might have considered taking a personal round of the Jail, after the D. I. G. s. arrival. The Enquiry Officer himself has observed as under 'while dealing with charge No.2:‑ "However, it may be said, in mitigation of Sardar Ghulam Mehdi, that shortly after his arrival his attention was probably diverted by the disturbance caused in extracting the injured warder Hanif from the jail premises and that not very much later, events overtook him with the arrival of the D.I.G. from Gujranwala." It is, also, relevant to reproduce the observations of the Enquiry Officer on the charge No.3 as under:‑ "Alternative he should have left it to an Officer who was reliable, which the D.S.P. HQs clearly was not. He did not make a personal check for the reasons discussed in the above paras. and it appears that he had confidence in his D.S.P. who was clearly not worthy of it. The appellant was imposed minor penalty of withholding the next two increments due to him with cumulative effect. This is again illegal because according to the Rule 4(i) clause (a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 the increments can be withheld for a specific period. The relevant portion of they Rule reads as under: "Withholding, for a specific period, promotion or increment, otherwise than for unfitness for promotion of fin9ncial advancement in accordance with the rules or orders pertaining to the service or post." The impugned orders therefore, are illegal and liable to set aside on this count too.

10. In the circumstances, we are clear in our mind that the penalty imposed on the appellant is not warranted by law and facts, the Enquiry Officer has just proceeded on surmises and conjectures and the impugned orders are unjustified.

11. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned orderly communicated through nemo. dated 21‑5‑1985 withholding the next two increments with cumulative effect is set aside by accepting this) appeal. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./212/Sr.P Appeal allowed.