1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as Constable in the Punjab Police and while posted at Lahore he alongwith Niaz Mir and Tanweer Ahmad was to escort Muhammad Aslam a convict in a murder case from Kot Lakhpat Jail to Court where he was facing another trial. When they were free from the Court, they hired a Taxi Car No.9. /LEW and went to village Khara and Lalian. The accused after alighting from Car took to his heals. The escape was made easy by the fact that the accused Police officials have put the handcuffs on of hand of the convict. When the respondent No.l came to know the escape of the convict they decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the personals of the Escort Guard. They served with a show‑cause notice. The show‑cause notice served on the appellant is dated 28‑7‑1984 and relevant portion reads as under: ‑ "On 25‑7‑1984 one Muhammad Aslam S/o Ghulam Qadir Rajput of Lalianwala Police Station Sharaqpur reported vide FIR No.187, dated 25‑7‑1984 a/s 224/225‑A, PPC that Mashooq S/o Sardara caste Chohan of his village was convicted to 25 years' R.I. in a murder case. Mashooq is confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore. He is also facing trial in other cases as well. The life convict was seen by him in his village in the custody of HC Niaz Mir No.4254 and Constable Liaqat Ali N0.2503, Tanveer Ahmed No.1708 brought there in a Car No.9/LEW. The moment the accused come out of the car, he took to his heals with the handcuffs imposed in one of his hands only. The investigation of the case revealed that the Police Party mentioned above took the accused from Kot Lakhpat Jail to produce him in the Court at Sheikhupura. When they were free from the Court, they hired a taxi car No.9/LEW and went to village Khaara and Lalian. His escape took place due to the negligence of the Police escort and with their connivance." The respondent No.l after hearing the appellant and going through the record of the case, decided to dismiss the appellant vide his order dated 2‑8‑1984. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order filed an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 after going through the oral explanation and taking into consideration rejected the appeal of the appellant vide order dated 3‑9‑1985. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:‑ "

3. The appeal as well as oral explanation of the appellant have been considered. He is an irresponsible type of Police official. He had been responsible for bringing bad name to the Department. He has a stinking service record, i.e. 10 bad entries. I have, therefore, no reasons to interfere with the orders of S.P. Appeal is, therefore, rejected." The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the respondent No.4. The same came up for hearing before respondent No.3, who treated the same as representation, heard the appellant in person and after due consideration of the entire matter proceeded to dismiss the petition vide order dated 3‑7‑1986. The relevant portion of the same is reads as under:‑ "

2. The petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct in that while acting as an escort to an accused person he, alongwith others, took him to various places resulting in the escape of the criminal. This is a very serious dereliction of duty amounting to connivance in the escape of a criminal. The petition is completely devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed." The appellant still not satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

2. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 4‑9‑1986. The respondents has contested the same, filed the parawise comments and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney for the respondents and gone through the file of the appeal.

4. The main grievance of the appellant is that although he was served with a show‑cause notice yet respondent No.l without awaiting for the reply proceeded to pass the order of dismissal from the service. Second submission is that since the appellant was acquitted by the learned Illaqa Magistrate so the penalty imposed by the respondent No.l is not justified. It is relevant to mention here in the context that a criminal case was also registered against the appellant and his companion in respect of this occurrence.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that since the appellant absented from duty w.e.f. 30‑7‑1984 and did not submit the reply while his co‑accused remained on duty and submitted their ,reply, therefore, the respondent No.l after due consideration of 'the appeal proceeded to pass order. It is further argued that the allegations made known to the appellant, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him.

6. We have considered the arguments of the both sides and find that the appellant has raised this technical petition otherwise he had no intention to submit the reply to the show‑cause notice in fact he has nothing to say in defence and justified his negligence. This is clear from the fact that the period of seven days expired on 3‑8‑1984, it is admitted position that the appellant has not submitted the reply to the show‑cause notice till then. The appellant was not aware of the impugned order of respondent No.l, therefore, if he really intended to submit the reply to the show‑cause notice the same should have been submitted by 3rd August, 1984. Therefore, we find no merit in the plea of the appellant. The other ground that since he was acquitted in the criminal case by the Trial Magistrate, therefore, the order of dismissal from service is not justified. We are not aware of the order of the Trial Magistrate as to copy of the same is not placed on the file. Moreover, this is clear case of dereliction of duty and gross in discipline which cannot be tolerated in any disciplined force like Police. The show‑cause notice which was not issued on the basis of the Registration of the case, therefore, the acquittal in a criminal case will not have any impact on the departmental proceedings which are independent.

7. The upshot of the discussion is that we do not find any force in this appeal the same is dismissed with costs. S.Q./147/Sr.P qAppeal dismissed.