1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZI (MEMBER-II).---These are two identical appeals bearing Nos.146 and 147 of 2000, respectively filed by the above-named appellants under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Since, both the appeals raise similar questions of law, as such, these have been jointly heard by us. The appellants above-named have prayed for declaration of the impugned order dated 23-5-2000 passed by the respondent No,2 as without jurisdiction hence be set-aside and the appellants be reinstated in service.
2. ' Facts of the case are that both appellants alongwith others were appointed in Karachi Police as Constables and after successful training were posted in similar positions. However, during the course of their service they were apprehended by CIA Police in a Criminal Case No,498 of 1991 under section 392/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Clifton alongwith other colleagues including one Muhammad Asif. All the officials involved in the said crime were arrested and challaned before the Court of Law. This action was as followed by their suspension and issuance of show-cause notice which culminated in their dismissal from service vide order dated 13-1-1992.
3. Later on, the criminal proceedings against all the accused police officials including the aforesaid appellants and their colleague Mr. Asif were quashed under section 249-A, Cr.PC vide order dated 12-4-1993 by the Court of ACM-II (CIA), Karachi. Thereafter, the appellants above named alongwith other colleagues including Mr. Asif filed their petitions for re-instatement in service before respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3, respectively, wherein, the petition for re-instatement filed by their colleague Muhammad Asif was allowed by Respondent No,1, while those of the appellants above- named were rejected which cause led to the filing of the aforesaid appeal.
4. ' From the perusal of record and proceedings of the appeal, we have come across two different orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 22-10-1998, 23-5-2000 and 19-6-2000, respectively.
5. None of these orders have categorically assigned any reasons for the action so contemplated thereon. Accordingly, the question of law, equity and justice arises whether the appellants above- named deserve separate treatment than their colleague namely, Muhammad Asif, particularly, under similar circumstances leading to their dismissal from service?
6. ' After hearing the arguments of the learned defence counsel and, the learned A.A.-G, we have come to the logical and rational conclusion that no different treatment seems applicable in the case of the aforesaid appellants vis-a-vis their colleague Muhammad Asif wherein all officials were dismissed from service on account of a common cause of action for the following reasons:--
(1) The order dated 22-10-1998 passed by respondent No,1 while reinstating one of the colleagues of the appellants viz. P.C. Muhamamd Asif, does not appear speaking but the spirit of the same seems to have been considered on compassionate grounds.
(2) The orders dated 23-5-2000 and 17-6-2000 in respect of appellants above-named merely indicated the words "The appeal... Has been considered and rejected/filed". Both these orders have been made by respondent No,2 without recording cogent and specific reasons, whatsoever.
7. ' It has, therefore, become very obvious that the competent Authority viz. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have applied different standards of judgment to two similar and identical nature of cases by allowing re-instatement of one and disallowing the same remedy to the two others. We feel that such treatment was made without any application of mind and consideration of merits of the case.
8. Whereas, the fact of the matter is that the appellants above named as well as their colleagues including Muhammad Asif were given common relief by the Trial Court of the learned ACM (CIA), thus, the relief provided by the respondents to one should have equally been allowed to the others in the interest of equity, fairplay and justice.
9. ' Besides, in support of his arguments, the learned defence counsel has come out with yet another convincing citation purporting to a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal reported in 2001 PLC (C.S.) 86 in appeal No,1689 of 1994, dated 29th February, 2000 which is reproduced as under:-- "Removal from service---Civil servant who was involved in a criminal case of kidnapping, was prosecuted but was acquitted of the charge by Trial Court holding that prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused/civil servant- Civil servant despite the acquittal was removed from service by Authority holding that though he was acquitted but charges levelled against him in F.I.R.
10. Had been proved during the investigation of the case---Validity-ignoring findings of criminal Court and passing order relying on investigation which had been turned down by Court was not fair--- judgment of Court should have been given due consideration---Order of removal from service passed against civil servant was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated from the date of his removal from service."
11. ' In view of the aforesaid pleading and findings considered by us, we hereby allow the appeals in respect of both the above appellants with similar benefits as have been allowed in case of the order passed by respondent No,1 dated 23-10-1998 in respect of their colleague Muhammad Asif.
12. ' Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal of this 6th day of July, at Karachi.