Brief facts of the case are that initially the appellant was awarded penalty of "censure" by the SP, Mobiles Lahore vide order dated 18.05.2006 on the charge that while deployed as gunman with Mobile Defence-4, (Shift-I) on 19.02.2006, alongwith other police officials during patrolling unnecessary stopped a car boarded, by women, checked them and misbehaved them in a rude manner. The Respondent No, 1 found that the penalty does not commensurate with the guilt of the appellant and he served the appellant with a show-cause notice No, 336/PA dated 21.06.2006 for the enhance of penalty. The appellant submitted his written reply explaining his position. However, the Respondent No, 1 did not find the appellant's explanation satisfactory and passed impugned Order No, 3956-58/PA dated 03.08.2006 awarding the appellant penalty of "withholding of increment for a period of 02 years". Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed departmental appeal before Respondent No, 2, who rejected the same vide impugned Order No, 32408/AC dated 15.07.2009. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision petition before Respondent No, 3, who also rejected the same vide impugned Order No, 6688-93/ AC-II dated 08.06.2011. Hence, this appeal.
2. The sole contention of the counsel for the appellant is that appellant as well as Mr. Sajad Ahmed No, 1823 were proceeded against on the similar charges and same penalty of "withholding of increment for a period of two years" was awarded to both of them. On appeal, the appellate authority converted the penalty of the co-accused of the appellant into "censure", vide order dated 20.09.2008, whereas, the penalty of appellant was upheld, which caused serious prejudice towards the rights of the appellant, as such he prayed for the setting aside of the impugned orders.
3. The learned District Attorney opposed the contention of the counsel for the appellant by relying on parawise comments submitted by the respondents.
4. Arguments of the parties heard and available record gone through.
5. I have gone through the order dated 20.09.2008, passed by the Respondent No, 2 in respect of departmental appeal, filed by Mr. Sajad Ahmad No, 1823 and found that both the accused were awarded similar penalty but on appeal, the appellate authority converted the penalty of Mr. Sajad Ahmad No, 1823. into "censure', whereas, the departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected. It is settled principle that all the equally placed persons should be given equal treatment. The act of the departmental appellate authority is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as such the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.
6. In view of above discussions, I partially accept the present appeal and modify the impugned orders by converting the penalty of "withholding of increment for a period of 02 years" into "censure".