For the proper appreciation of allegation against the appellant the charge as framed by the competent authority against the appellant through show-cause notice dated 29.7.2009 is reproduced as below:-- "That Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, acting SP, Traffic Region D.G.Khan alongwith SI Sajjad Hussain, Traffic Rajanpur, paid a surprise visit at Teleri Chowk, Muzaffargarh, in plain clothes. It was observed by the SP, Traffic Region, D.G.Khan that you and ASI Ejaz Ahmed of Traffic Staff, Muzaffargarh allowing heavy traffic to go through the city after taking money from trucks etc. The then SP, Traffic Region D.G. Khan tried to grab you red-handed but you resisted, district staff intervened but backed out when SP/T, D.G. Khan introduced himself. After your thorough checking an amount of corruption i.e. Rs. 410/- were got recovered from your pocket. A Toyota Corolla car Model 1986, bearing Reg. No. 545/R alongwith Challan Book No. 71135, issued in the name ASI Ejaz Ahmed, lying inside the car were taking into the custody. You were caught red-handed involved in corruption.
Your involvement in corruption is grave misconduct. You also failed to perform your duties in an appropriate manner. This act on your part is highly objectionable which amounts to disciplinary action against you under PEEDA Act, 2006".
2. The appellant filed reply to same but the competent authority not feeling satisfied with the reply vide order dated 12.8.2009 imposed penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant. The appellant filed departmental appeal against the said order but the same was not decided by the appellate authority within the statutory period, therefore the appellant approached this Tribunal through the present appeal.
3. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that alongwith appellant on the same charge one Ejaz Ahmed ASI No. 7652 was also tried jointly and through order dated 12.8.2009, the same competent authority i.e. SSP, Hqrs, Traffic Punjab, Lahore imposed similar penalty of dismissal on said Ejaz Ahmed, however, his appeal was accepted by the appellate authority on 26.1.2010 i.e. during the pendency of this appeal and Ejaz Ahmed was reinstated in service with immediate effect with further treatment of his intervening period as leave of the kind due whereas in the case of appellant his appeal has not been decided by the appellate authority. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the jointness of charge between the appellant and said Ejaz Ahmed and further similarity of facts, as his co-accused namely Ejaz Ahmed has been exonerated by the appellate authority and having been reinstated in service, therefore per Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guaranteeing equal protection of law to the similarly placed persons the appellant also deserves the same treatment.
The learned Counsel for the appellant to support his connection has placed on record copy of order dated 26.1.2010 passed by Dr. Tarik Khokhar, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Traffic, Punjab Lahore accepting the appeal of Ejaz Ahmed ASI No. 7652. To support his above connection, the learned counsel finally argued that it is now established principle of law that beneficial decision/judgment in service matters is applicable to all the similarly placed persons whether they have or not come to the Service Tribunal. The learned Counsel has in this respect relied on 1996 SCM R 1185. The learned Counsel for the appellant therefore submits that by following the above noted principle of law as well as rule of consistency the appeal of the appellant may also be decided in the same terms.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy District Attorney has opposed this appeal by arguing that as the role played by both official/officer was distinguishable, therefore neither facts of Ejaz Ahmed's case nor the decision of the appellate authority in the said case be applied to the present case and present appeal be decided on its merits and the same be dismissed having no force.
5. Arguments considered, record pursed.
6. The show-cause notices in both the cases have been perused and both show notices carry the same charge as reproduced above. The competent authority in both the cases was the same and the order against both the appellant and said Ejaz Ahmed was passed on the same day i.e. 12.08.2009. Even the language of both the orders with variance of names contains the same.
7. All the above noted facts bring me to conclude that both Sajjad Farid, present appellant and Ejaz Ahmed were similarly placed persons and in this view of the matter there is a considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that per force of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 both the civil servants are entitled to equal protection of law. Even otherwise, the hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLJ 2006 SC 564 and 1991 SCM R 1041 held "Judgments passed in violation of principle of consistency are not sustainable in the eye of law. The Tribunal and Courts must give consistent judgment qua similarly placed persons". It was held by the apex Court in 2005 SCM R 499 "Under Article 25 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law".
8. Resultantly this appeal is also accepted and while following the above noted dictum of law by the apex Court the order of competent authority dated 12.8.2009 imposing penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant is set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service from the date of dismissal, however the nature of intervening period is ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due.