1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑‑Munir Ahmad Hotiana, Superintendent Jail, Sialkot, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 for setting aside Order No. 336, dated 10th September, 1983, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby he was awarded penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and appellate order dated 17th November, 1983 by which his appeal was rejected. He has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore, and Home Secretary to Government of Punjab, Lahore, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the while working as Superintendent District Jail, Jhang. the appellant proceeded on four days casual leave from 19th March, 1983 to 22nd March, 1983 with permission to avail Friday the 18th March, 1983. The appellant handed over the charge to the Deputy Superintendent Jail and proceeded on leave. Unfortunately after the expiry of said leave he caught fever and was unable to move about. As Medical Superintendent was on leave, the appellant was treated by Dr. Capt. Z. A. Shah, ex‑M. S. of Bahawalpur Division at Bahawalnagar. During the absence on leave of the appellant four condemned prisoners made good their escape from the District Jail. Jhang during the night between 23/24th March, 1983. In consequence of the aforesaid incident the appellant alongwith Deputy Superintendents and two Assistant Superintendents Jail, were placed under suspension. Some of the warder‑guard were arrested for collusions with the escapees‑ The appellant was served with charge‑sheet on 12th May, 1983 to which he submitted reply, A show‑cause notice was issued to him alongwith a copy of the findings of the inquiry conducted by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Cheema, Superintendent, Central Jail, Mianwali. The appellant submit ted reply after which the respondents awarded punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect. The appellant filed appeal before the respondent No. 2 who dismissed the same. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Jails were like volcanoes, they may not erupt for one hundred years and they may erupt in no time. According to the learned counsel for the appellant when the unhappy and unfortunate incidence occurred the appellant was on leave and before proceeding on leave the appellant handed over the Jail to the Deputy Superintendent Jail in perfect condition as per record of the Jail. It was argued that in these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination the appellant could be made to share the responsibility of dereliction of duty of others. Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing has submitted that the inquiry reveals that the appellant was not at all guilty of all the charges so levelled against him and it was concluded that the escape had occurred due to the negligence of warder‑guard who connived with the escapees. However, the appellant has been punished for two reasons. It was vehemently argued that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant did not record the testing of alarms, which was in fact the duty of Deputy Superintendent Jail and not of the appellant. Similarly it has been pleaded that the appellant by not issuing 303 rifles to the under guard was not guilty of any lapse as the guards were untrained persons and were not conversant with the said use and instead were armed with musket which was sufficient safeguard to prevent any said escape. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that whatever case may be, the appellant should have recorded the practice of alarm parade and the matter should not have been left with the Deputy Superintendent Jail. Similarly it was submitted that it was incumbent upon the appellant to issue 303 rifles with ammunition whether the staff was trained or not. 7. We have given out anxious thought td the arguments advanced by the patties and find that the Enquiry Officer has completely exonerated the appellant from all the charges by holding that when the appellant pro ceeded on leave be has handed over the Jail in good and normal conditions and there was nothing on the record to show that control of the jail management was in any ways lack or improper. 8. While going through the Rules we find that the explanation tender ed by the appellant in reply to the show‑cause notice was convincing. What we further find is that according to rule 1009 (i) of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, it was the duty of Deputy Superintendent Jail to have recorded the factum of holding practice of alarm and not the duty of the appellant. This being the rule it is not possible for us to hold the appellant guilty when it has been accepted by the Enquiry Officer that practice of alarm parade was positively held but same was not recorded in the register. 9. With regard to non‑issuing of 303 rifles with ammunition to the warder‑guards, we find that both types of arms were available with the District Jail Jhang. It is also on record that 303 bore rifles were only issued to a trained staff which was not available in the Jail. In these circumstances, the appellant had no alternative but to issue muskets which could easily be handled by a raw hand with a little know-how. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that these lapses if any, had no bearing on an organized and well‑planned escape of condemned prisoners during the absence on leave of the appellant. 10. In view of the above we are fully satisfied that both these lapse cannot be attributed to the appellant for which he has been punished with minor penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. 11. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders as of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. A. E. Appeal accepted.