Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 2(aa) and 4

Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act–
Provisions of the Act that it shall be applicable for all the persons in the service of the Republic. The Act shall also be applicable to the employees of statutory bodies only when it is included in the Schedule to the Act. On careful scrutiny of the Schedule to the Act, it transpires that Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the Act was not applicable to the writ petitioner. Since, the Act was/is not applicable to the writ petitioner and he had no other equally efficacious remedy available in any other forum, provided by any law, the High Court Division rightly found the writ petition to be maintainable. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. …Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Humaiyun Kabir(Md), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 109] ....View Full Judgment

Section 2, clause (b )

The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) Ill. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 2 and 4

The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 911 . ....View Full Judgment

Sections 2(aa) and 4

The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 3 and 5

There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

The Writ petition is not maintainable–
The Grameen Bank being in the list of enterprises contained in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, matters relating to service of the employees of the Grameen Bank would have to be referred to the Administrative Tribunal. As such any petition under the writ jurisdiction relating to service matters of the Grameen Bank is not maintainable. Challenging the vires of the regulations was merely a ploy to bring the matter within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. As it happens, the writ petitioners challenged the regulation Nos. 13.1 and 13.5 in Chapter-Three of the regulations which are not applicable to their cases. We are of the view that the challenge to the vires of regulations 13.1 and 13.5 of the Bidhimala was totally misconceived and that the Grameen Bank being an enterprise listed within the schedule of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, the writ petitions were not maintainable. …Birendra Nath Ojha =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 358] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

We note that the Appellate Tribunal found that there was no dispute that the petitioner (respondent herein) cross-examined some other P.Ws. We also note from the papers that the respondent was given personal hearing as requested by him and he was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal shifted the burden on to the appellant to prove that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses whose evidence led to his finding of guilt. When the delinquent employee alleges any defect in the proceeding then it is his burden to prove such allegation. In the face of admission that some of the P.Ws were cross-examined, we cannot accept that the respondent did not get the opportunity to cross-examine the other P.Ws. The respondent was compulsorily retired, which means that he will get all his employment benefits up to the date of the order of his retirement. We find that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. The impugned order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The order of the Administrative Tribunal is restored. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Isa Md. Nizamul Islam, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 70] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(2)

Promotion–
The Tribunal also declared that the appellant was entitled to his seniority on the basis of his past service with all “attendant benefits towards promotion from the date of which his juniors” were promoted along with increments, time scale, fixation of pay etc with arrears. Against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.
We are constrained to hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the appeal, setting aside those of the Administrative Tribunal and we find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is allowed. The decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside and those of the Administrative Tribunal are restored. .....Md. Mahmudul Haque =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 123] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(2)

The Administrative Appellate Tribunal came into a finding that while passing the impugned decision the Administrative Tribunal failed to consider that the departmental proceeding against respondent No.1 was not initiated and disposed of legally and that the Administrative Tribunal arrived at a wrong finding in disallowing the case causing serious miscarriage of justice. The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. .....Janata Bank & another =VS= Md. Minhaj Uddin Ahmed & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 178] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(2)

The termination of the appellant was a “termination simpliciter” without attaching any stigma and that in fact no departmental proceedings were brought against the appellant in spite of serious allegations against him. In such a situation it would be illogical to sustain the order of the Administrative Tribunal thereby reinstating the appellant in service on an unwilling employer. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to get 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal in part setting aside the judgement of the Administrative Tribunal. The respondent Grameen Bank is hereby directed to pay the appellant Md. Azizul Haque salary for two years at the rate which was paid to him as on the date of his termination of service. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs. .....Azizul Haque(Md.) =VS= Grameen Bank, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(2), 6

Limitation–
The finding of the Administrative Tribunal in respect of limitation in filing the cases is wrong and contrary to the provision of the 2nd proviso to section 4(2) of the Act. The respondents were dismissed from service following the procedures as contained in Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and as such the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeals, which, however, did not consider the question of limitation at all. We find substance in all the appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal affirming the decision of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. .....Ministry of Finance =VS= Md. Mominur Rahman, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 335] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

Considering the legal position the Administrative:Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General/ Secretary, Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94. ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

Transfer of a trade union leader—Plea of, protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority—Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C.—The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal which has the full power to give complete relief to applicant. The right of a trade union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIIII of 1969) S. 47B Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2). Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another; 10 BLD (AD) 71. ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(1)

Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(1)

Mr. Mahbubcy Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

Petitioners have not been given· any right· under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hajizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147. ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65. ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

Period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal– This Court in a number of cases earlier decided that it is the 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso, i.e. two months plus six months which shall govern the period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal and a case filed before the Administrative Tribunal after the expiry of the said period (two months + six months) shall be barred by limitation.
We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the case filed before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation.
When admittedly, the case in hand was filed before the Administrative Tribunal long after the period of six months after the expiry of the period of two months from the date of filing the departmental appeal as provided in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, the opposite parties appellant could very much raise the point of limitation in the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal rightly entertained the same, and decided the point against the petitioner. We find no merit in the leave petitions and accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. …AKM Jalaluddin Ahmed =VS= Ministry of Education, BD, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 335] ....View Full Judgment

Section 4(1) and 4(2)

The Administrative Tribunal is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 to hear and determine applications made by any person in the service of Republic or statutory public authority as specified in the schedule in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or in respect of any action taken in relation to him in the service as aforesaid. The proviso to sub section (2) of section 4 provides that "no application in respect of an order, decision or action which can be set aside, varied or modified by a higher administrative authority under any law for the time being inforce relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority or the discipline of that service could be made to the Administrative Tribunal until such higher authority has taken a decision on the matter". The applicant must be an aggrieved person by any order or decision or action taken by the authority which confers the powers and jurisdiction of the higher Administrative Tribunal subject to fulfilment of two conditions as provided in the proviso.
The Administrative Tribunal has no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within 6(six) months of making a decision by the higher Administrative authority. Since no decision was given by the higher authority the application under section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act was not maintainable. …Ministry of Food, Bangladesh =VS= A.B.M. Siddique Mia, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 240] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 4(2), 6(2A)

The case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal– By the order of the authority dated 06.10.1998 the appellant was demoted to his lower rank for a period of two years, against which he filed appeal before the authority, namely the Government, on 13.10.1998. The appellate authority by order dated 12.08.1999 demoted the appellant to his lower rank for ever.. The appellant then filed a case before the Administrative Tribunal on 08.02.2000 challenging both the orders dated 06.10.1998 and 12.08.1999. However, the requirement of the law as enunciated in the second proviso to section 4(2)of the Act, 1980 is that the case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal.
The point of limitation was elaborately discussed in the case of Md. Nazimuddin vs Government of Bangladesh and ors reported in 17 BLC (AD)10.
The decision of the Administrative Tribunal was dated 12.10.2002 and the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was filed on 23.4.2003 which is beyond the period of six months stipulated in section 6(2A) of the Act, 1980.
The result the appeal is disposed of. The order of the Administrative Tribunal as well as the judgement and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal are set aside. The order passed by the Government, being the appellate authority, is hereby held as not valid in law and is of no legal effect. The order of the concerned departmental authority sentencing the appellant to a lower rank for a period of two years is upheld. The appellant will receive all the service benefits that accrued to him, apart from the period of two years of punishment ordered by the departmental authority. …Anwar Hossain Biswas =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(1)

It is seen from the provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act that an appeal lies from an order of the Administrative Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Tribunal refused the prayer for ad-interim order restraining the authority from granting promotion to the respondents. So the respondent Nos. 1-11 herein if were aggrieved by the order so passed by the Administrative Tribunal they were required as per provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act to file appeal, if any, they would have thought fit. But instead of doing that they were not well advised to file the writ petition seeking the relief identical to the relief sought in the Administrative Tribunal case with the sole object of having an ad-interim order restraining the authority from taking steps for the promotion of the Assistant Superintendent of Police to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police.
Khalilur Rahman, ASP SB, Dhaka vs Md Kamrul Ahsan 10 BLC (AD) 193. ....View Full Judgment

Section 6A

In the instant case PSC recommended for regularisation of the opposite parties No. 3-86 on 28-1-1998 and thereupon the said opposite parties became the members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Enforcement: Police Cadre) and that being so in law they can only claim seniority in the Cadre Service on and from 28-1-1998 and no other date.
Khalilur Rahman (Md) PPM and others vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 8 BLC (AD) 80. ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(2)

Aggrieved person and necessary parties
There appears to be no guidance either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including those of Order 1. Except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to. apply to the Tribunal. But still then as a general rule it cannot be disputed that all necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of A.S.Ps. and they are seeking relief against the Government alone it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees and as such it cannot be said that the case is bad for defect of parties for not impleading respondent Nos. 1 — 15. Respondent Nos. 1—15 nevertheless are aggrieved’ person within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act in that the order of the Tribunal was likely to be prejudicial to them in the matter of seniority. Their right of appeal cannot, therefore, be denied. Md. Abdul Mannan and ors Vs. Mr. Hasan Mahmud Khondker and others, 16 BLD (AD) 147 ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(2A)

The present petitioners filed the above mentioned Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No.l, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No.l31 of 2005 with an application under section 6(2A) of the Administra­tive Tribunal Act, 1980 praying for con­donation of delay of 2 (two) months and 6 (six) days in filing the appeal. Gov­ernment of the People's vs. Mcl. Mizaniii-Rahman (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 846 ....View Full Judgment

Section 6(2)

Appeal must be filed in 3 months.
The aggrieved person may prefer an appeal within 3(three) months from the date of order or decision before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal has no power to extend the period of Limitation.
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Ansarul Huq 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 209 ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

Powers and Procedure of Tribunals
Although the Administrative Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court and the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable for specified purposes to the proceedings before it, yet it is not a Court proper and it does not possess all the powers of a court provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication.
Kamrul Hasan vs. Bangladesh and others, 16 BLD (AD) 35 ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. Kamrul Hasan vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR (AD) 44. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 10-12

Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12.
Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no ·proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court. Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No. SRO 92-L/82-JIV /IT-3/81 dated 12-3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538. ....View Full Judgment

It is not permissible to take disciplinary action against a person solely on the basis of adverse remarks made by a Tribunal in a criminal case unless the allegations imputed in the adverse remarks are proved in disciplinary proceeding. .....Bangladesh =VS= S.M. Raiz Uddin Ahmed, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 260] ....View Full Judgment

Promotion is not a matter of right–
It is clear that the petitioner took a chance of comparing himself with respondents No. 5 and 6 and as they have been given promotion with retrospective effect he should also be given the same, treating him at per with them and as such he should not have been deprived, as he has been, according to him, being of equal status. But the case is quite different. The petitioner being not in service and having not raised any such question any time during his tenure in the service, before his retirement, he cannot, under any circumstances, equate himself with respondents No. 5 and 6 and as such he cannot claim promotion and benefit after two and half years of his retirement on receipt of the full pension benefits without any objection on the basis of equating him with the said two respondents. His case can never be considered to be at per or of equal status with respondents No. 5 and 6. We are of the view that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal correctly appreciated the law and considered the facts of the case and came to a correct conclusion for which it is difficult to find any legal infirmity/flaw in the same and as such there is nothing to interfere with. This civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost. .....Mohammad Shafi Ullah =VS= Ministry of Disaster Management & Relief, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 148] ....View Full Judgment

Service matter–
Considering the above facts and circumstances we find that the Administrative Tribunal did not commit any wrong in setting aside the punishment of removal from service imposed on the respondent No.1. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also, therefore, did not commit any wrong in affirming the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal. .....Agrani Bank =VS= Md. Zakir Hossain & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 109] ....View Full Judgment

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 read with
The Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102(1)
Terms and conditions of the service under Article 102(1) of the Constitution is not maintainable–
This Division has already settled that except challenging the vires of law or alleging violation of fundamental rights, judicial review of a decision of the authority relating to the terms and conditions of the service under Article 102(1) of the Constitution is not maintainable.
The writ-petitioner-respondents have come to a wrong forum and they may still approach appellants, that is, the bank authority by filing departmental appeal to get redress of their grievances in respect of gradation list. If they fail to get proper redress from the appellants, the writ-petitioner-respondents will be at liberty to go to the Administrative Tribunal, which can decide any question relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the writ-petitioner-respondents including the question of malafide in preparation of the gradation list.
This appeal is allowed with the observation made in the body of the judgment that the writ-petitioner-respondents are at liberty to go to the Administrative Tribunal to vindicate their grievances. The impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division is set aside. .....Bangladesh Krishi Bank =VS= Arun Chandra Banik, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 344] ....View Full Judgment