HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this writ petition arc that the petitioner joined Excise and Taxation Department, Government of the .Punjab as Key Punch Operator/Data Entry Operator (BS-1 1) on contract basis for a period of three years through order dated 5-6-2007. During the performance of his duties, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 30-8-2008, he refuted the allegations in his reply and dissatisfied with the same he was afforded a chance of personal hearing by the competent authority and finally on account of misconduct, he is terminated from service through order dated 12-9-2008.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whenever an employee despite his status of contract or temporary is terminated with stigma, he is entitled for a regular inquiry as per law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Amjad v. WAPDA 1998 PSC 337, but in the present case not only the law (supra) is violated but the petitioner is discriminated too.
Further submits that the main employee against whom the serious allegation was levelled is not even asked, the Inspectors are of course being proceeded but through a process of regular inquiry and if the petitioner is treated alike, he shall be satisfied.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was afforded every opportunity to defend his case through the course of show-cause notice and he was allowed a chance of personal hearing, so the requirements of principle of natural justice were adhered to and that he cannot claim for his retention in service particularly when his. Appointment is on contract. Further submits that if the petitioner is taken back on duty, it shall cause a serious humiliation of the officers who otherwise acted in good faith while dealing with the petitioner and the entire discipline of the office shall be at stake.
4. So far the question of discrimination is concerned, learned counsel submits that the Inspectors, who are being dealt with through the course of inquiry are regular employees of the department, whereas the petitioner being a contract employee cannot be treated at par with those.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. There are some admitted facts, which are not denied by the departmental representative during the course of arguments -and those are:--
(i) Co-accused Atif Mahmood Data Entry Operator is not penalized in any manner.
(ii) Co-accused Mazhar Inspector is directed to face regular inquiry.
(iii) The reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the present petitioner reveals the specific denial of the allegations.
7. When these facts are not denied, then I shall have no other option except to follow the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Amjad v. WAPDA 1998 PSC 337, wherein it is resolved once for all that "even in case of a contract employee if the allegations are refuted then without resorting to the procedure of regular inquiry, the employee cannot be condemned".
8. In the present case, there is another admitted fact that co-accused is facing a regular inquiry but the petitioner is ousted from service resorting to a shorter procedure of show-cause notice, meaning thereby that discrimination is evident in the present case.
9. In that situation, I can take a strength from the law laid down by the honouorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mahr Muhammad Nawaz v. M.D. Small Business Corporation (Civil Appeal No,427 of 2005 decided on 9-10-2008), wherein it is held "needless to emphasize that while dealing with the cases where the aggrieved party alleges discrimination, the Court cannot overlook the implication thereof. Equal treatment of all similarly situated is the basic principle on which rests justice under the law. If even justice is not administered, it can have many adverse and negative effects on a society. It can cause discontentment and frustration in the social. Set up. There can be no denial that social justice is an object and enshrined in our Constitution".
10. As observed earlier, similarly placed co-accused is afforded an opportunity to defend himself through the course of regular inquiry, whereas the petitioner is ousted from service with stigma resorting a Shorter procedure thus I have no Other option except to set aside the impugned order.
Accordingly the petitioner is reinstated into service and the respondent department is directed to hold a regular inquiry in line with the inquiry which is being conducted against co-accused namely Mazhar Inspector and then decide the fate of the petitioner's case, but strictly in accordance with law.
11. It is further observed that the department, if feels that the posting of the petitioner against the same post from where he is terminated shall be an embarrassing situation for the department as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the best course shall be to utilize the petitioner's services against some other post till the finalization of the inquiry proceedings.
' Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.