JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have called into question orders dated 16.12.2013, 14.2.2015 and 31.8.2015 passed against them in course of disciplinary enquiry. By order dated 16.12.2013 the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, while acting as disciplinary authority, inflicted minor penalty of censure entry under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The said order was upheld in appeal by order dated 14.2.2015 and in revision by order dated 31.8.2015. 2. The petitioners are constables in civil police. While they were posted at Sessions Court, Fatehpur for lock-up duty, a prisoner Uttam Singh Chauhan escaped from police custody on 16.9.2013. The Reserve Inspector, Police Line, Fatehpur conducted preliminary enquiry. He reported that as per entry in General Diary vide Rapat no.8 Time : 11:55 hours, accused Uttam Singh was sent to Court No.12 for Peshi alongwith constable Vinay Singh. According to the statement of court moharrir, he went to police lock-up at 12:45 hours to call Uttam Singh for peshi but came to know that he had already been sent to court alongwith constable Vinay Singh at 11:55 hours. He also stated that the accused was produced before the court at 13:20 hours and after about 10-15 minutes he returned to the police lock-up and handed over warrants to Pradeep Singh, petitioner no.2 but the lock-up in-charge Ram Vansh Dube and other police personnel did not enquire about his whereabouts in time nor searched for him. It was only at about 17:45 hours that information was given to the higher officials on mobile phone about the accused running away from the police custody. On 4.9.2013, S.I. AP Gorakhnath, during routine check up of the lock-up, issued instruction for exercising extra caution in respect of prisoner Uttam Singh, which was however, not followed. Based on his report, the petitioners were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The charge against the petitioners was to the following effect :- ^^vkjksi %& fnukad 16&09&2013 dks vfHk;qDr mRre flag pkSgku iq= jktsUnz flag fuoklh deykuxj dysDVjxat Fkkuk dksrokyh ds U;k;ky; is'kh ds nkSjku iqfyl vfHkj{kk ls Hkkx tkus o mDr cUnh dks fcuk dksVZ eqgfjZj ds lwpuk fn;s gh le; ls igys is'kh gsrq jokuk djus ,oa okjUV okil vkus ds ckn Hkh vfHk;qDr dh ryk'k le; ls u djus ds vkjksi gSA^^ 3. However, the enquiry officer found the petitioners guilty, not of the charge levelled against them, but of not following the instructions issued by S.I. Gorakhnath at the time of inspection on 4.9.2013. Based on the said report, the petitioners were punished. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds :- (a) Petitioner No.1, on the relevant date, was entrusted with duty of making entries in the General Diary and petitioner No.2 in prisoner duty register. They were not having any power nor entrusted with the duty to depute persons who were to accompany prisoners to court. It was the responsibility of the lock-up in-charge Ram Vansh Dube. They were also not accompanying the accused but it was constable Vinay Singh. Consequently, they could not be held responsible for the prisoner succeeding in running away from police custody. (b) On the relevant date, 93 prisoners were brought to the lock-up whereas only 25 police personnel were posted for lock-up duty in the Sessions Court. The petitioners after receiving intimation from court moharrir sent prisoner Uttam Singh alongwith constable Vinay Singh to ACJM Court No.12 for peshi. This was done on specific instructions from the court moharrir. They specifically denied that warrant was returned at 14:00 hours. According to the petitioners, it was received at about 16:20 hours and soon thereafter enquiry was made about the missing prisoner Uttam Singh. He was searched in the court premises. At about 16:45 hours, constable Vinay Singh was found in unconscious state and he informed that prisoner Uttam Singh, taking advantage of rush in the court, succeeded in running away. The petitioners made entry in general diary about the same at 16:45 hours and soon thereafter informed the higher officials. Thus there was no delay on their part in reporting the incident to the higher officials. (c) The petitioners have been punished for not following the instructions given by S.I. Gorakhnath during inspection on 4.9.2013, while there was no such charge levelled against them in the charge sheet, nor they could be held responsible for violation of the alleged instructions issued by him, as it was not part of their duty to depute police personnel to accompany prisoners to court. 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioners had been negligent in performance of their duties. 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioners had been negligent in performance of their duties. Mahrajdin, the court moharrir, in his statement clearly stated that the petitioners were responsible for sending the prisoner to the court before time and in not searching for his whereabouts even though the warrant was returned at 14:00 hours and thus, the charges levelled against the petitioners stood proved. 6. The petitioners filed their reply specifically denying the charges levelled against them. 7. On 16.9.2013, according to petitioner no.1, he was entrusted with the duty of making entry in the general diary and petitioner no.2 in the prisoner duty register. The petitioners were not entrusted with the duty of posting police personnel who had to accompany a prisoner, the same being the responsibility of Ram Vansh Dube, lock-up incharge. They were not accompanying the prisoner when he succeeded in slipping away from the court. These facts are not disputed even by the State-respondents. 8. As regards the charge that the petitioners sent the prisoner to court before time, even before receipt of instructions from court moharrir, the same was specifically denied by the petitioners. They took a specific plea that at about 11:55 hours, prisoners were being sent to court no.9 and court no.2 and at that time court moharrir of court no.12 came to police lock-up and instructed them to send Uttam Singh to court and whereupon, after making relevant entries in general diary and prisoner duty register, prisoner Uttam Singh was sent to the court with constable Vinay Singh. They also disputed the statement of court moharrir that he returned the warrant at 14:00 hours. According to them, court moharrir returned 58 warrants in connection with 58 prisoners at about 16:20 hours, after court hours and whereafter search was made for the missing prisoner Uttam Singh. At about 16:45 hours, constable Vinay Singh was found in a semi-conscious state and he informed that the prisoner Uttam Singh succeeded in running away, taking advantage of rush in the court. Despite best efforts, he could not trace him out. Thereafter higher officials were informed about the incident on telephone and entry was made in general diary at 16:45 hours. Despite best efforts, he could not trace him out. Thereafter higher officials were informed about the incident on telephone and entry was made in general diary at 16:45 hours. Even Vinay Singh constable, who accompanied the prisoner, supported the version of the petitioners and accepted that he informed the lock-up incharge about running away of the prisoner at about 4:30/5:00 p.m. The lock-up incharge Ram Vansh Dube also supported the stand taken by the petitioners. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, who conducted the enquiry, in his report dated 1.11.2013 did not find the testimony of court moharrir reliable as no one else supported his version. However, he proceeded to observe that the instructions issued by S.I. Gorakhnath on 4.9.2013 for exercising extra caution in respect of prisoner Uttam Singh was not followed by the lock-up incharge Ram Vansh Dube and the petitioners. The concluding part of the report wherein such observation has been made is to the following effect :- ^^tgkW ij dkUl0 jktukFk o iznhi dks okjUV nsdj okjUV dk vadu djkus ds ckn okil U;k;ky; pys vkus dk c;ku fn;k x;k gSA ysfdu bl lEcU/k esa dksVZ eqgfjZj ds dFku dh izekf.kdrk gsrq dksbZ vU; lk{; miyC/k ugha gqvkA ;|fi ykdi izHkkjh lfgr ykdi ij fu;qDr vU; dfeZ;ksa }kjk vius c;ku esa dksVZ eqgfjZj vkj{kh egjktnhu }kjk mDr cUnh ds okj.V dh okilh yxHkx 16-00 cts ds vklikl fd, tkus dk vfHkdFku fn;k x;k gS vkSj dksVZ eqgfjZj vkj{kh egjktnhu ds vfHkdFku ds leFkZu ds ckjs esa dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gks ldk] fdUrq ,l0vkbZ0 l0iq0 Jh xksj[kukFk iqfyl ykbUl Qrsgiqj }kjk fnukad 04&09&2013 dks ykdi dk fujh{k.k fd, tkus ds nkSjku mDr cUnh dh is'kh ds le; fo’ks"k lko/kkuh ,oa is'kh ds nkSjku mlds lkFk etcwr fdLe ds deZpkjh yxkus ds lkFk gh bl ij lrdZ n`f"V j[ks tkus ds funsZ'kksa ds izfr ykdi izHkkjh gs0dk0izk0 54 jkeoa'k nqcs ,oa vkj{khx.k jktukFk ;kno o iznhi flag mijksDr }kjk bu funsZ'kksa dk ;Fkkor vuqikyu u djus o blesa ltxrk o laosnu'khyrk dk vHkko ifjyf{kr gqvk ftlds fy, ;g nksuksa iqfyldehZ nks"kh gSA^^ vk[;k voyksukFkZ fuosfnr gSA^^ 9. The disciplinary officer, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, in his order dated 16.12.2013 specifically noted the defence of the petitioners that prisoner Uttam Singh did not run away from their custody, consequently, they could not be held responsible, but did not deal with the same. The disciplinary officer, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, in his order dated 16.12.2013 specifically noted the defence of the petitioners that prisoner Uttam Singh did not run away from their custody, consequently, they could not be held responsible, but did not deal with the same. He, like the enquiry officer, also proceeded to observe that the petitioners did not follow the instructions issued by S.I. Gorakhnath on 4.9.2013 and thus found them guilty. The specific defence of the petitioners that they were only entrusted with the duty of making entry in general diary and prisoner duty register and thus, could not be held responsible for breach of guidelines issued by S.I. Gorakhnath during course of inspection on 4.9.2013, was not dealt with. The petitioners filed appeal in which they specifically reiterated the defence set up during disciplinary enquiry. Once again, the appellate authority did not advert to the defence of the petitioners, but dismissed the appeal observing that no new fact has been brought on record. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the punishment order. The revisional authority has also dismissed the revision by observing that no error or irregularity has been brought to its notice. 10. Once the testimony of Mahrajdin, court moharrir, on basis of which the entire charge was founded against the petitioners, was not accepted, as there was no material to support the same, the petitioners were entitled to be absolved of the charges levelled against them. 11. However, the enquiry officer and also the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to hold them guilty of not following the instructions given by S.I. during course of inspection on 17.9.2013 without realising that there was no such charge levelled against the petitioners. Even in connection with the said charge, the defence of the petitioners that they were not responsible for deputing police personnel who were to accompany prisoners, was not even alluded to. In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioners could not have been punished for some thing, which never constituted the charge. 12. In consequence, and having regard to the discussion made above, the punishment awarded to the petitioners is not sustainable in law and accordingly all the three orders are quashed. The petitioners are held entitled to full salary during suspension period. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.