1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant preferred this appeal against the order dated 7-7-1986 of respondent No, 1 vide which he was dismissed from service in consequence of a strike allegedly organized by the police force, District Kohistan against the then S.P. Kohistan. He was served with a charge-sheet, summary of allegations and a show-cause notice to which the appellant submitted his written reply, but instead of holding an enquiry, respondent passed the impugned order against which he moved respondent No, 2 through a departmental appeal but the same was not decided despite service of legal notice by the appellant through Local Council; hence the present appeal on the grounds that the said order is perverse, arbitrary, mala fide, biased, against law and principles of natural justice and equity. The respondent No, 1 himself acted as a prosecutor as well as a Judge. No enquiry was conducted although the allegations levelled against the appellant required a thorough probe.
2. ' Appeal was vehemently resisted by the respondents, who took several pleas containing the cause of action, jurisdiction of the Tribunal, limitation, misconduct by the appellant and non-observance of the proper and legal way. Arguments heard and the record perused.
3. We have gone through the same with due caution and care and have come to the conclusion that in case a major penalty is imposed upon a police official, the authority has got no other option except to appoint an Enquiry Officer/Enquiry Committee to probe into the matter. The accused official is entitled to defend his rights and interests. He must be given free and full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, to know about the result of the enquiry conducted against him by furnishing him with its copy. Further if the authority is a party to it, then in accordance with the golden principles of natural justice, he should not act himself as a party in the case but depute some other officer to complete the legal formalities before passing the order in the matter. In the present case the authority himself served upon the appellant the show-cause notice, charge- sheet and the summary of allegations before dispensing away with his service. No man can be the judge of his own cause and no man is above the law of the land are two cardinal principles which must be kept in mind while deciding the fate of an individual. The principles are to be followed by a judicial, quasi-judicial or even by an executive authority because to maintain justice is the duty of every institution/body. In the present case we have observed with great concern that the appellate authority did not decide the matter within the statutory period provided by section 4 of the N.-W.F.P.
4. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 but even it did not pay any heed to the legal notice served upon him by the appellant through his counsel. Of course there is no time limit provided in the Act for a departmental appellate authority to give his verdict on the departmental appeal, however, it was not the intention of the law-makers that the agony of an aggrieved Government servant would prolong for an indefinite period. For this we hereby quote relevant section of law i,e, section 4 of the act. Relevant portion of section 4 of the Tribunal Act is reproduced as under:- "Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may, within 30 days of the communication of such order to him prefer an appeal, to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter, provided that where an appeal, review or a representation to a departmental authority is provided under the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, or any rules against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or an application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of 90 days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal/application/representation was preferred."
5. Nowhere it was the intention of the legislature to enhance the mental torture and worries of an aggrieved civil servant for an unspecified period. It always meant a reasonable time. Therefore, we are of the view that if the authority does not decide the matter within a reasonable time, then the aggrieved Government servant is entitled to challenge the order any time he likes. In the present case the appellant had also served upon the respondent a legal notice to communicate to him the result of his appeal. The above arguments would lead us to the conclusion that the appellant had got the cause of action to challenge the said order which was passed in utter disregard of the law of the land, that this Court has jurisdiction to pass an order in the matter, because whenever the question of mala fide comes, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is always attracted to probe into the matter. In the present case authority has acted with great illegality and with a mala fide intention to punish the appellant without hearing him. On the basis of the above discussion we have got no other alternative but to accept the present appeal with all back benefits to the appellant who is reinstated in service from the date when he was dismissed from it. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room.