1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This is an appeal by Mr. Rehmat Ali, Sub‑Inspector against the imposition of penalty by reduction in pay by one stage. The brief background in the matter is that appellant while posted as S. H. O., P. S. Musakhel was served with a show‑cause notice dated 23‑8‑1986. The accusation part of the show‑cause notice reads as under:‑ "You, Sub‑Inspector, Rehmat Ali No.S/95, while posted as S.H.O. at P.S. Musakhel, were directed to carry out patrolling and enforce Nakabandis in the area of P.S. Musakhel on the night between 16/17‑8‑1986. D.S.P./S.D.P..O. Musakhel checked the duties at 1‑45 p.m. and found you as well as your staff asleep while Constable Muhammad Anwar No.293 was absent. A report was recorded in the Daily Diary Register vide serial No.22 dated 17‑8‑1986 by D.S.P. Riaz Ahmad Khan. Your have thus flagrantly disobeyed the lawful orders of your senior officer." The appellant submitted reply to the show‑cause notice and explained that the instructions were fully and faithfully carried out. There was no violation. The Respondent No.l sent for the appellant for Orderly Room hearing and after going through the record he was not impressed by the justification rendered by the appellant. The result was that Respondent No.l proceeded to dismiss the appellant from service vide order dated 29‑9‑1986. The appellant assailed this order through Departmental appeal before the Respondent No.2, who after going through the record and hearing the appellant accepted the appeal, re‑instated the appellant and instead imposed the penalty of reduction in his pay by one stage. The appellant, thereafter, submitted a petition before the Respondent No.3 but thereafter filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appeal was admitted to hearing on 18‑7‑1987. The Respondents have entered appearance in response to notices issued to them, filed written objections and contested the appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Manzoor Hussain, District Attorney and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal argued that even Annexure 'M', on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, fully proves that appellant had taken all necessary precautionary measures end there was no violation of any instruction. Annexure M is a copy of the Rapt No.22 dated 17‑8‑1986 recorded by Riaz Ahmad Khan, D.S.P. in the Daily Diary. The report reads as under:‑

3. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that a special meeting was convened by SDPO and SHOs of the District to carry out patrolling vigilantly on the night preceding Eiduz Zuha i.e. the night between 16/17‑8‑1986. The appellant was particularly directed to be vigilant because desperate outlaws were likely to visit their kith and kins on the said night. But the appellant did not care for the instructions and when at 1‑45 a.m. D.S.P. checked the duties, he found the appellant and other members of the staff asleep in their respective homes.

4. We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments on both sides and gone through the record. The report of the D. S. P., Which furnished basis of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, if minutely gone into, then the plea of the appellant is proved by the report itself. The D.S.P. in the report has clearly admitted that Head Constable Muhammad Mukhtar, Rafiq Ahmad, Constable and Muhammad Zaman, Constable, in addition to one Head Constable and eight Constables were all on patrolling. It, is, therefore, clear that appellant had taken necessary precautions in the light of the instructions imparted to him. The instructions were not that everybody should be out on patrolling. The learned counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that 'the appellant has not failed to attend patrolling duty, but appellant has to be present in the Police Station. It was sole discretion of the appellant to deploy the force under him in a most effective manner and while scheduling this he has to keep in view natural requirements of body like food and rest. The correct position was explained in his reply to the show‑cause notice which is appended as Annexure B with the appeal, but the Respondents No.l and 2 failed to take the same into consideration. It is too much to expect from a human being to be on duty for 24 hours whether he is a policeman or anybody else.

5. The result is that we accept this appeal with costs and set aside the order of Respondent No.2 dated 15‑11‑1986. M.Y.H./207/Sr.P Appeal allowed.