WIQAR AHMAD, J.----This order is directed to dispose of Writ Petition bearing No. 11-M of 2019 filed by the petitioner Sajjad Hussain under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. The petitioner has asserted in the Writ Petition that he was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years in the Police Department as Constable in Special Force on 24.12.2009. He was found involved in a case registered through FIR No. 324 dated 06.06.2012 under sections 381-A/41 1, P.P.C. at Police Station Saidu Sharif, Swat but was acquitted therefrom vide order dated 25.10.2012 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Swat. It has further been contended that respondent No. 3 had illegally terminated the employment of the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2012 and has prayed for setting aside the said order and reinstatement in service. He has also asserted in Writ Petition that he had filed a departme ntal appeal before respondent No. 2 on 10.09.2018, on which an inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer recommended for reinstatement of the petitioner but same was not agreed with, by respondent No. 2 who vide letter bearing No. 9725 dated 06.1 1.2018 declined to re-instate the petitioner in service.
3. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were summoned who filed their para-wise comments, wherein they have asserted that during investigation as well as departmental probe, the petitioner was found guilty and his contract as member of Special Police Force was terminated by the competent authority . They have further asserted in the comments that the departmental appeal of the petitioner was badly barred by law of limitation and he has got no right to challenge the termination of contract service in any forum.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 02.01.2017 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal annexed with his petition and contended that petitioner was similarly placed with the appellants of the appeals before the learned Service Tribunal and therefore entitled to be similarly treated. He placed reliance on the case of WAPDA through Chairman and others v. Abdul Ghaf far reported as 2018 SCMR 380 and case of Aamir Junaid and 143 others v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and 5 others reported as 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1 in this respect. He also added that no regular inquiry has been held against the petitioner and relied upon the case of The Secretary , Government of the Punjab through Secretary , Health Department, Lahore and others v . Riaz-ul-Haq reported as 1997 SCMR 1552 , to fortify his submissions.
5. The learned A.A.G. while appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner was a contract employee and has got no right of reinstatement in service, therefore his writ petition is liable to dismissal.
6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner , learned A.A.G for the respondents and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was appointed in the Police Department on contract basis for a period of two years vide order dated 24.12.2009. He got involved in a case of theft registered vide FIR No. 324 dated 06.06.2012 under sections 381-A/41 1, P.P.C. at Police Station Saidu Sharif, Swat. It has also been alleged in the comments that he was arrested and recovery of stolen vehicle was effected from him. His acquittal in the case appears to be the result of some compromise and settlement effected into with the complainant party which may be ascertained from the statement recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Swat on 24.10.2012 as well as the order dated 25.10.2012 which are available as Annexure "C" to the Writ Petition. He was on contract and removed from service on 07.11.2012 while the petition has been brought in the year 2018 which is hit by the doctrine of laches. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of Civil Aviation Authority through Director General and 3 others v. Mir Zulfiqar Ali and another reported as 2016 SCMR 183 and case of Umar Baz Khan through L.Hrs. v. Syed Jehanzeb and others reported as PLD 2013 Supreme Court 268 .
8. On merit also, the case against the petitioner is not fit for re-instatement, as a contract employee has got no right to maintain a Writ Petition for his reinstatement in service. Reliance in this respect is made on the case of Federation of Pakistan and another v. Hashim Khan Qureshi reported as 1987 SCMR 156 and case of Government of Balochistan v . Dr. Zahida Kakar reported as 2005 SCMR 642 .
9. So far as the case of extending of equal treatment to the petitioner is concerned; it is important to be noted that the petitioner relies on the cases of other Police Constables who had been removed from service in a similar case and were re-instated in service by the Learned Service Tribunal with the directions to the department to conduct a denovo inquiry in the case vide order dated 02.01.2017. The petitioner is not similarly placed with the appellants of those cases.
10. The ratio of the judgment of Hameed Akhtar Niazi's case which has also been followed in the subsequent cases of Khwaja Abdul Hameed Nasir and othe rs v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2003 SCMR 1030 ) and WAPDA through Chairman and others v. Abdul Ghaf far and others reported as 2018 SCMR 380 cannot be applied in the case of petitioner . The appellants in the appeals before the learned Service Tribunal were regular Constables serving in the Elite Force whose right of hearing in case of adverse proceedings arose out of the rules applicable to them. They were not contract employees. They had been denied the opportunity of cross-examination and there were certain other weakness in the proceedings of inquiry , whereupon their order of termination was set aside and the department was 'directed to conduct a denovo inquiry against the appellants of those appeals. As stated earlier , the petitioner was a contract employee whose right to a proper inquiry has never been provided in any law or rules. He cannot seek similarity of treatment with other regular employees of the police force. The judgments of A.C./Administrator , Municipal Committee, Lakki Marwat, N.W.F.P v. Izzat Khan and 12 others (2000 SCMR 777), WAPDA through Chairman, and others v. Abdul Ghaf far and others (2018 SCMR 380) and Rana Asif Nadeem v. Executive District Officer, Education, District Nankana and 2 others (2008 PLC (C.S.)
715) would also be of no help to the petitioner for the reasons explained above. Similarly , the judgment reported in the case of The Secretary , Government of the Punjab through Secretary , Health Department, Lahore and others v. Riaz-ul-Haq (1997 SCMR 1552 ) is also not applicable to the case of petitioner as in the said case, the respondent was though appointed on contract basis had subsequently been regularized by the concerned department.
11. So far as inquiry conducted in pursuance to application dated 10.09.2018 is concerned; the departmental appeal was also time barred and the departmental authority was not bound to agree with report of the Inquiry Officer particularly in the case where the recommendation of Inquiry Officer was not based on any law. The departmental authority has therefore rightly dis-agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Of ficer.
12. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is without any force and is dismissed accordingly .