' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Muhammad Bashir Sheikh, ExSub-Engineer, Highways, Government of the Punjab, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that Notification, dated 15th February, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the judgment announced by the Summary Military Court No, 70 in the case of fraudulent payment etc. Detected in Road Construction Division, Shandara, Messrs Saleem Ahmad Khan, S.D.O., Abdul Hafeez Sub-Engineer, and the appellant were dismissed from service with effect from 1st December, 1981 and Shamim Ahmad Khan, S.D.O., working in Lahore Development Authority, Lahore, was removed from service with immediate effect by Notification, dated 15th February, 1982, issued by S. Sibtul Hassan Shah, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department, The cases of Messrs Saleem Ahmad Khan, S.D.O. And Abdul Hafeez, Sub-Engineer co-accused mentioned above came up before this Tribunal.
Vide Judgment, dated 29th October, 1983 (in Case No, 493/1915 of 1982 and Case No, 450/2025 of 1982) the said two appeals were accepted and Notification dated 15th February, 1982, was set aside. The appellant came to know of this decision in above cases of Messrs Saleem Ahmad Khan and Abdul Hafeez and he submitted an appeal, dated 21st November, 1983 to the respondent. As mentioned in para 4 of the appeal, the appellant has come to know on 10th April, 1984 that his aforesaid appeal has been filed by the respondent but no such rejection was conveyed to him in writing. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e, Mr. M. A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondent on behalf of the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal announced on 29 October. 1983 in Case No, 493/1915 of 1982 and Case No, 450/2025 of 1982 of Messrs Abdul Hafeez and Saleem Ahmad Khan Ex-Sub-Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer co-accused. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was also a co-accused in these cases and he was also dismissed by the same impugned Notification, dated 15th February, 1982 by the respondent. Hence by virtue of this judgment the appellant should have also been reinstated in service, treating him at par with co-accused civil servants while deciding their case after issue of the said judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant, further repelled the objection of the respondent as raised through para. 2 of the parawise comments "the said decision is no way applicable to the appellant who was not a party in these two appeals." He has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as in case of Chairman, Pakistan Railways, Lahore v. Muhammad Latif and others and has submitted' that it has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that benefit of the Judgment of the Tribunal cannot be denied to a civil servant on the ground that he was not a party to litigation before the Tribunal. He has pointed out that according to this judgment benefit of judgment" of the Punjab Service Tribunal cannot be denied to a civil servant simply because he was not a party to that litigation. The appellant's counsel has prayed that on the principle of law as laid down above, and also on the principle of fair play, equity and justice, the judgment already given in the cases of other two co-accused be made applicable to the appellant as well.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that the order of punishment -of Messrs Saleem Ahmad Khan and Abdul Hafeez were set aside by the Punjab Service Tribunal on the 'technical grounds. The said decision is only relative to those two officers of the Punjab Government and the said decision is no way applicable to the appellant who was not a party in those two appeals. As the appellant is a convict as such he was rightly dismissed from service vide order, dated 15th February, 1982 of the respondent. Thus, the appellant cannot derive the benefits from the judgment so delivered in cases of Messrs Saleem Ahmad Khan and Abdul Hafeez.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and has submitted that the judgment already given by this Tribunal in cases of other two co-accused Messrs Abdul Hafeez and Saleem Ahmad Khan, should have been made applicable in the case of the appellant as well by the respondent himself and the appellant should have been reinstated in service as was done in the cases of two co-accused, mentioned above. He has prayed that the judgment already given by the Tribunal be made applicable in case of the appellant as well. ##TS# # We have gone through our judgment already given on 29th October, 1983, in cases of other two co-accused Messrs Abdul Hafeez and Saleem Ahmad Khan and consider that facts of the appellant's case being the same/ identical, the appellant should also be given the benefit of our above judgment keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court o Pakistan in their judgment reported as 1984 SCMR 286, referred to in para. 5 of this judgment.
8. The result of the above discussion is that the operative part of this Tribunal's earlier judgment, dated 29th October, 1983, in Case No, 493/1915 of 1982 and No, 450/2025 of 1982, of Messrs Abdul1 Hafeez and Saleem Ahmad Khan, as per "8" para. Reproduced below be read and acted upon as part of this judgment in the case of the appellant as well, by the respondent :- "8. We, therefore, accept the appeals, set aside the Notification, dated 15th February, 1982 and reinstate the appellants as Sub-Engineer and S. D.
0. Respectively. The Government is however, at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with the rules and law then applicable to the appellant."
' There are no order as to costs. 1984 SC MR 286