It is well-settled that on the self-same allegation a departmental proceeding against an employee is competent besides a proceeding in a Court of law. Although in the present case the departmental proceeding was started on the basis of the conviction of the respondent in the Summary Martial Law Court but it was an independent enquiry in which the respondent had examined several witnesses in his defence and no fault was found by either of the tribunals with the enquiry procedure. The order of compulsory retirement was passed following an independent enquiry and the said order has been affirmed in appeal filed under the Rules. Under such circumstances, irrespective of the question as to whether conviction on a criminal charge in a Martial Law Court is covered by Rule 8 of the Rules or not, the order of punishment cannot be interfered with in the absence of any fault found with the departmental proceeding. Government of Bangladesh Vs Md. Abdul Karim, 16 BLD (AD) 99. ....View Full Judgment

Serious scandal of corruption in connection with judicial functions.
The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of an officer and gain notoriety must faster than the smoke. Sometimes there may not be concrete or material evidence to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. Judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions. Members of the judicial service, exercising judicial functions, are distinct from the members of other services. Their honesty and integrity is their judicial functions and their overall reputations. There is no manner of doubt that nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity. Dishonesty is the stark antitheses of judicial polity.
Md. Aynul Haque -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh (Hasan Foez Siddique J) 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)31 ....View Full Judgment

Respondent was convicted by Summary Martial Law Court. After serving out the sentences of imprisonment and after payment of fine the respondent filed various representations to the Government for his re-instatement but ultimately the authority dismissed the respondent from service — the respondent filed Administrative Tribunal case, against the order of dismissal. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case. But the Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the order of dismissal was passed illegally — Held: We have gone through the impugned order of dismissal. The authority in view of the conviction of the respondent of a criminal offence decided whether the respondent should be punished under 1985 Rules and in fact decided to dismiss him from service under Rule 4(3) (a) of 1985 Rules. As no proceeding needs to brown up arid no opportunity needs to be given to the respondent for showing cause against the proposed penalty (under Rule 25 (3) of 1985 Rules) the Government passed the order of dismissal straightway. We find no illegality in it and the Appellate Tribunal was obviously on the wrong in finding the impugned order to be illegal. [Para- 12] Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Golam Rahman Mallic 3 BLT (AD)- 196 ....View Full Judgment

As per notification dated 24.6.86, the Secretary being the Designated Officer can lawfully do everything except imposing a major penalty and the same needs no approval of the President who is the appointing authority of the respondent.
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules only speaks that no major penalty can be imposed by any subordinate authority other than the appointing authority. Secretary being the designated authority, the imposition of minor punishment has been lawfully passed in the case although the charge-sheet was submitted by the authority for imposing major penalty. Government of Bangladesh and another Vs M.A. Malek, 17 BLD (AD) 161. ....View Full Judgment

Legal opinion—case of removal from service—the Enquiry Officer’s findings are never binding on the punishing authority who has the duty, obligation and jurisdiction to give an independent finding based not only on the enquiry report and papers submitted by the Enquiry Officer but also on other departmental reports and papers available to it—the law requires that the recording of reasons is a must where the punishing authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but the law does not require that the recording of reasons should be a Legal Opinion”. [Para- 13] Trading Corporation of Bangladesh Vs. Kazi Abdul Hye 6 BLT (AD)-8. ....View Full Judgment

Respondent was a permanent employee of the Public Health Engineering Department, having been posted last at Kushtia Sadar. He obtained leave from 1-7-76 to 3-7-76 on account of the illness of his father who along with his mother and his wife and children were at that time living at Magura town. He applied for extension of leave till 8-7-76. Thereafter he himself fell ill and applied for extension of leave. He reported for duty on 1-10-77 but came to learn that by an order dated 25.4.77 he had been discharged from service with effect from 1-7-76. He challenged the order of discharge on the ground that no proceedings were instituted against him for unauthorized absence or on any other allegations — held : Admittedly there is no dispute that the appellant sent a show cause notice to the respondent asking him to show cause why he shall not be removed from service on the charge of prolonged and continued absence from duties — for purposes of sending a show cause notice containing charges against him the appellant was not obliged to send the same to his fleeting address at Magura of even to cause the notice to be published in a newspaper — if the appellant had acted without appointing an enquiry officer in view of the preposterous facts presented by the respondent, then it cannot be said that the action taken was wholly without authority or in violation of the 1976 Rules. [Paras- 9 & 11] Superintending Engg. & Ors. Vs. K. Asaduzzaman & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-78 ....View Full Judgment

The respondent was placed under suspension and a proceeding case drawn against him on a charge of misconduct on 23 February, 1982 under the Rules of 1976 and during the pending of this proceeding the new Rules of 1984 came into operation on 19.7.84. The respondent was compulsory retired from his service by the appellant on 20 February, 1985 — The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found that the respondent was giving of misconduct but allowed the appeal and set aside the order of retirement on the ground that the departmental proceeding falls within the mischief of Rule 7 (11) of the Rules of 1984 as the said proceeding was not completed within the time limit prescribed by this Rule — Held: In the present case, the respondent having not been served with the charge sheet under the Rules of 1984, sub-rule (ii) of Rule 7 is not applicable in the case of the respondent —we hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal grossly misinterpreted rule (ii) of-Rule 7 of the New Rules of 1984 and wrongly made the same applicable in the present case — Appeal is allowed. Additional General Manager & Anr Vs. Mizanur Rahman. 4BLT (AD)-122 ....View Full Judgment

As per notification dated 24.6.86, the secretary being the designated officer can lawfully do everything except imposing a major penalty and the same needs no approval of President who is the appointing authority of the respondent. [Para-9] Bangladesh & Anr. Vs. M.A. Malek 5 BLT (AD)-222 ....View Full Judgment

Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that with the second show cause notice that was served on respondent No. 1 a copy of the enquiry report was not annexed depriving respondent No. 1 of giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty the mandatory requirement of law having not been complied with, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly set aside the order of removal and reinstated respondent No. 1 to his service. [Para-2] Director Khulna Tele. Comm. Region Vs M. Islam & Anr 3 BLT (AD)-90. ....View Full Judgment

Disposal of departmental proceeding within specified time—Automatic discharge of the employees on the expiry of the time limit to take decision by the authority— Whether employees of Trading Corporation of Bangladesh departmentally proceeded against under Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1976 stand automatically discharged on the expiry of the time limit to take decision against them by the authority—These proceedings were drawn under the Rules of 1976 and were pending when the Rules of 1984 the qualifying clause “as far as may be” was inserted obviously in the previous Rules there was no such provision, but no such qualifying clause was necessary in the similar provisions of the Rule of 1985 as the same time limit was there in the provisions of the Rules of 1984—It is impossible to apply the provision of time limit under the Rules of 1985 in a proceeding which was drawn under the Rules of 1976-” Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 Rr. 7(9) & 27 M.A. Hai and others - Vs- Trading Corporation of Bangladesh. 8BLD (AD) 84 ....View Full Judgment

It requires that on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer or the Board of Enquiry, the authority shall consider the report and record its findings on the charge.
The Enquiry Officer’s findings are not binding on the punishing authority. The authority has the duty, obligation and jurisdiction to give independent findings based not only on the enquiry report and papers submitted by the Enquiry Officer but also on other departmental reports and papers available to it. If the enquiry report makes finding in favour of the delinquent employee and the punishing authority disagrees with the said findings and holds that charges framed against I delinquent employee have been proved, the punishing authority is required to give some reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Unless the reasonings are perverse and shocking to human conscience, based on pure surmises and conjectures, there is no scope for the High Court Division to reject the reasonings. The Trading Corporation of Bangladesh, represented by its Chairman Vs Kazi Abdul Hye, 17 BLD (AD) 156. ....View Full Judgment

Completion of departmental proceeding within 150 days
In the instant case, no final decision was taken by the authority within 150 days as contemplated by Rule 7(9) of the Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985. But since the Tribunal found the very appointment of the petitioner as false and fictitious the Appellate Division refused to exercise its discretion to interfere in the case of a departmental proceeding as the petitioner would not be able to improve his case in a fresh inquiry. Md. Abdus Salam Vs Govt. of Bangladesh, represented by the Collector of Customs and Excise, Dhaka and others, 17 BLD (AD) 214. ....View Full Judgment

Whether Inquiry Committee has authority to recommend any punishment
The High Court Division made the Rule absolute on relying the decision in C.P. No.367 of 1995 and also in the case of Chairman, Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another vs. Abdul Khaleque, reported in 43 DLR (AD) 209, in a departmental proceeding the role of the Inquiry Committee is only to help the authority in arriving at a correct and impartial finding on the charges levelled against the delinquent and if on inquiry the delinquent is found guilty of the charge, the authority is the sole judge as to what sort of punishment should be awarded and accordingly any recommendation made by the Inquiry Committee in respect of punishment to be awarded does not affect the delinquent and moreover under Rules 10(8) of the above Rules 1985 the Inquiry Committee also has no authority to recommend any punishment and they after making inquiry, will only give findings as to whether the delinquent is guilty or not of the charges levelled against him but in the present case the Inquiry Committee, while submitting their report, recommended for inflicting major penalty on the respondent which caused prejudice to the respondent. We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper consideration of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. Education Board Camilla & Ors Vs. Md. Shafiqul Islam 20 BLT (AD) 263. ....View Full Judgment

Dismissal on ground of conviction— Constitution of Bangladesh- Article 102- Rejection of Writ Petition- on ground of laches and inordinate delay-
Petitioners were dismissed from service on ground of conviction for criminal charge under the Martial Law dispensation. Although Martial Law was withdrawn on 10.11.1986. the petitioners filed the writ petitions in 1997. Explanations of long delay of 10 years in making repeated representations to various authorities have been held to be not acceptable. In view of inordinate delay and apparent laches on the part of the petitioners to come to the writ jurisdiction for seeking relief in summary way, the rejection of the writ petitions by the High Court Divisions is held to have been made rightly although on different grounds. Md. Fazlur Rahman Akhonda (Md.) & others Vs. Government of Bangladesh. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 65. ....View Full Judgment

Power of Enquiry officer—Under Rule 10(8) an Enquiry officer shall give only his finding whether the accused is guilty or not guilty and shall not make any recommendation as to punishment or otherwise. Further. an enquiry shall be completed within the specified period. Bashir Ahmed -Vs- Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation and others. 12BLD (AD) 125 ....View Full Judgment

Further enquiry—It is not required that a further inquiry is to be made after reinstating the Government servant whose removal order has been set aside by a Court of law or Administrative Tribunal. Once the authority decided to hold a further inquiry, the Government servant “shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the authority from the date of original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further order”. The condition of further inquiry. however, is that the decision to do so shall have to be taken within 30 days from the date of decision of the Court or Administrative Tribunal. Muhammad Muslim Au -Vs- The Secretary, Ministry of Establishment and others. 12BLD(AD)193 ....View Full Judgment

Provides for suspension of a Government servant whose dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is setaside by Court or tribunal when the authority decides to hold further inquiry—
The authority is empowered under Rule 11(3) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 to hold further inquiry after dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is setaside or declared invalid by a court or tribunal. When the authority decides to hold further enquiry, the said Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement. No formal order for that will be necessary. But when the authority allowed the delinquent Government servant to join and continue to serve for a considerable time, the authority thereafter can not decide to hold further enquiry which right is lost to the authority by waiver. Government of Bangladesh and others Vs. A.K.M. Fazlul Haque 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 210. ....View Full Judgment

The impugned order of punishment imposed on the petitioner had been illegal for non-service of any second show cause notice and also for not supplying the enquiry report, as per requirement of law before imposition of the punishment.
The State -Vs.- Abdul Halim 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 130 ....View Full Judgment

Time spent on review to be excluded in computing limitation.
The time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation in filing a case before the Administrative Tribunal. Md. Jahangir Kabir Vs Bangladesh, 16 BLD (AD) 85. ....View Full Judgment

A reference to rule 27 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 makes it clear that the Rules of 1984 were repealed and as per sub-rule (2). of rule 27 of the Rules of 1985 there was no bar in disposing of the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1985 as the proceeding was pending at the commencement of the Rules of 1985. Syed Masudur Rahman Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., 18 BLD (AD) 245. ....View Full Judgment