JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Disst. Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, by which he had decreed the suit of the plaintiff appellants. 2. The appellants were posted at Police Station, Kolba, District Jaipur. They were sent along with another constable Sagar Mal for getting the police remand from the Magistrate at Bandikui, for the accused Lohariya. Since no Magistrate was available at Bandikui, they went to Dausa, where also, no Magistrate was available and therefore, they came to Jaipur and went to the residence of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, who refused to grant police remand and ordered for.judicial custody of the accused. Since the accused could not be lodged in jail in the night, the appellants took the accused to Kolba police Station, by passenger train 14 Dn, leaving Jaipur at about 8.30 p.m. The accused was kept in the police lock up at police station Kolba in the night. The accused was taken in the morning at about 6.45 a.m. by shuttle to Bandikui but the accused gave a severe jerk and jolt by which the leather belt of the Constable Sagar Mal was broken and the accused at once jumped out of the train. Chain was pulled and after the train stopped, all the three persons could search out the accused with the help of other persons and they surrendered the accused at Police Station Kolba in the same night and lodged a case under section 224 IPC. With regard to the aforesaid incident, both the appellants and Sagar Mal were subjected to enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and a joint enquiry under Rule 18 was held. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the police constable Sagar Mal and the appellants but the Supdt. of Police did not agree with the enquiry report and gave a show cause notice, proposing penalty of removal from service. The appellants submitted their reply and after considering the reply, the Supdt. of Police inflinted the punishment of removal from service on both the appellants as well as Sagar Mal, by his order dated 31.7.1981. The Dy. of Police did not agree with the enquiry report and gave a show cause notice, proposing penalty of removal from service. The appellants submitted their reply and after considering the reply, the Supdt. of Police inflinted the punishment of removal from service on both the appellants as well as Sagar Mal, by his order dated 31.7.1981. The Dy. Inspector General of Police also dismissed the appeal preferred by these persons, giving reasons in detail. A review petition was filed before the Governor and the review petition was also rejected by a detailed order dated 16.1.1983. Thereafter, a notice under section 80 CPC was given and the suit was filed. 3. Learned Trial Court, after recording evidence decreed the suit and set aside the order of dismissal passed against the appellants as well as Sagar Mal. The State Government preferred an appeal and the learned first appellate court, by his order dated 2.4.1990 accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and maintained the order of dismissal. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been filed. 4. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the learned courts below as well as the record of the case and have also heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. After perusing the record, am of the opinion that the appellants and Sagar Mal had been correctly found guilty of the charge levelled against them but the punishment inflicted upon them is bopelessly disproportionate with the charges levelled against them. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to Workman Bharat Fritg Wenner v. Bharat Fritg Wenner (1990 F.L.R. 482) , Sudhanshu Shekhar v. Union of India (1989(1) SLR 502) , Khem Chand v. Union of India and others ( 1989(2) SLR 441 ) , State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1979(2) SLR 527) , Ved Prakash v. M/s. Delton Cable India (1984 (2) SLR 5) , Abdul Hakim v. Union of India and others (1987 (1) SLR 647) and Delhi Transport v. Delhi Administration ( 1973(1) SLR 578 ) . 6. 6. The most significant fact in the case is that the accused who had run away from the custody of the appellants and Sagar Mal, was ultimately apprehended the same day and therefore, there can be no malafide or any other reason for this act of their' The very fact that the accused was lodged in the police station the same day, shows that there cannot be any malafide and therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant is maintained but the punishment of removal from service, awarded to the appellants, is quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the whole matter in the light of the observations made above and the authorities cited above, to inflict proper punishment which is not disproportionate to the charges which have been held to be proved against the appellants. The appellants should report to the Supdt. of Police, Jaipur on 15.4.1991 with a certified copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to decide the matter by 15.5.1991. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******