1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:--- "That the honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the petitioner has right under the law to continue to remain in service and that he cannot be sacked or removed unlawfully and mala fidely and that the service of petitioner can only be dispensed with in due course of law, including the law of natural justice and principle of audi altrem partem and the terms and conditions as set out in his letter of appointment".
2. ' It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed along with other employees as Chowkidar in BPS-1 from 18-11-2007 to 20-2-2008 by the respondent No,1 and was approved by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further case of the petitioner that after setting up of new Government in Province of Sindh after general election held on 18-2-2008, respondent No,1 had issued general directives dated 29-4-2008, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Petitioner made representation against the aforesaid illegal action but to no avail, hence this petition.
3. ' On service of notice, respondents Nos.1 and 3 filed comments which were sketchy in nature.
4. However, appointment of the petitioner so also termination from service was admitted by the respondents.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before the Court that the petitioner has been discriminated against and has been removed from employment in violation of principle of natural justice. No show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner nor he was heard prior to passing of impugned order. He further attacked the impugned order contending that no plausible reason for adverse action against the petitioner has been disclosed. He has also invited our attention to the earlier judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court passed in C.P. No,D-381 of 2008 and submitted that co-employees of the petitioner who were appointed with common order of appointment along with petitioner had assailed their termination order dated 29-4-2008 which was subject matter of above referred petition. He further submitted that impugned order dated 29- 4-2008 is a non-speaking order and it violates provisions of section 24-A of General Clauses Act.
6. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that aforesaid petition was heard and learned Division Bench of this Court allowed the same with the following observation:-- "In view of above, we found that rule of audi alteram partem has not been followed and petitioners without any reason and affording an opportunity to defend, were terminated. Hence, this petition is allowed along with the listed application. Respondents are directed to post the petitioners on the respective post in accordance to the appointment letters issued to them with all benefits of the respective posts within one month from the date of this order".
7. ' In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another 1994 SCM R 2232, Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others PLD 1995 SC 423 and Hameed Akhtar Niaz v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCM R 1185.
8. ' On the other hand. Learned A.A.-G. Frankly conceded that the earlier judgment is in his knowledge and also agreed to the legal proposition that earlier judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court on the same point is binding upon the subsequent Division Bench who is hearing the matter relating to same issue.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as an employee along with other employees. It is also an admitted position on record that the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 29-4- 2008 along with other employees. It is also admitted position on record that other aggrieved employees challenged the impugned order dated 29-4-2008 through C.P. No,D-381 of 2008 and same petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 8-4-2009.
10. ' Now taking up the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been discriminated against, and petitioner is entitled for the same treatment as has been given to other employees who were removed along with petitioner and in support of his contention he has relied upon case of Abdul Hameed Niazi (supra) wherein the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with the issue has observed as under:--- "We may observe that if the Tribunal or this Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servant who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum".
11. ' Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was condemned unheard and principle of natural justice was violated, hence on this ground alone, termination order is liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (supra), wherein honourable Supreme, Court of Pakistan has held as under:--- "From the above stated cases, it is evident that there is judicial consensus that the maxim audi alteram partem is applicable to judicial as well as to non-judicial proceedings. The above Maxim will be read into as part of every statute if the right of hearing has not been expressly provided therein. In the present case respondent No,1 in its comments to the writ petition (at page 42 of the paper book) admitted. The fact that no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant nor she was heard before the impugned order dated,6th August, 1991 reverting her to Grade VI from Grade VII was passed. In this view of the matter there has been violation of the principles of natural justice.
12. The above violation can be equated with the violation of a provision of law warranting pressing into service Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which the High Court failed to exercise".
13. Now taking up the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is non- speaking order. It is settled law that all the authorities including the Courts are required to pass speaking orders and such view is supported by the judgment of honourable apex Court in case of Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager. Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi 1998 SCM R 2268, wherein their lordships of the apex Court has observed as under:- "The doctrine has further been recognized and augmented by the recent insertion of section 24-A in the General Clauses Act. 1897, which declares that where a statute confers a power to make any order or to give any direction to any Authority, office or person, such would be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment. What is more, the order or direction, so far as necessary or appropriate would reflects reasons for its making or issuance and, where the same is lacking, an effectee may demand the necessary reasons, which, in response, would be furnished."
14. ' Now taking up the last argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier judgment of learned Division Bench is binding upon the subsequent Division Bench dealing with the same point.
15. This point has came up for consideration before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Multiline Associates (supra), wherein honourable Supreme Court has ruled as under:--- "In such circumstances, legal position which emerges is that the second Division Bench of the High Court should not have given finding contrary to the findings of the 1st Division Bench of the same Court on the same point and should have adopted the correct method by making a request for constitution of a larger Bench, if a contrary view had to be taken. In support reference can be made to the cases of the Province of East Pakistan v. Dr. Azizul Islam PLD 1963 SC 296 and Sindheswa r Ganguly v. State of West Bengal PLD 1958 SC (Ind.) 337, which is a case of Indian jurisdiction. We, therefore, hold that the earlier judgment of equal Bench in the High Court on the same point is binding upon the second Bench and if a contrary view had to be taken, then request for constitution of a larger Bench should have been made".
16. Following the earlier judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court, we set aside the order dated 29-4-2008 and allow this petition. The respondents are directed to post the petitioner on the post in terms of his appointment letter within one month from the date' of his order.
17. ' By a short order dated 7-7-2010, we had allowed this petition; these are reasons for the same.