Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2(a)

The respondent was sub-Inspector of Police who was placed under suspension and on 7.6.94 charge was framed against him by the Additional Inspector General of Police Ultimately by impugned order dated 7.7.94 the Additional Inspector General of Police compulsorily retired him from service-In the instant case it is the Appellate Authority which had drawn up the proceeding against the present respondent and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon him- Held: we are in agreement with the view of the Appellate Administrative Tribunal which held that the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent was not sustainable in law and that the tribunal had correctly held that the proceeding against the respondent was without jurisdiction. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Sayed Shafiqul Islam 12 BLT (AD) 130. ....View Full Judgment

Section 3

The Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section 3 read with
Bangladesh Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation, 1979
On consideration of section 3 of the Ordinance vis-a-vis regulation 6 of the Regulations, it is obvious that consultation with Public Service Commission is mandatory before passing the order of dismissal in respect of each of the respondent as section 3 of the Ordinance has not ousted the operation of other laws, rules and regulations. .....Bangladesh =VS= Md. Bellal Hossain Mollik, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 86] ....View Full Judgment

Section 3 and 4

Overriding effect of the Ordinance over all other law and regulations—
Proceedings under the Ordinance, 1976 against the accused police officers shall have to be initiated and concluded in the jurisdiction where the offence is committed. The provisions of the Ordinance,shall have effect over the Police regulations. Therefore Regulation 859 has no manner of application to the cases falling within the purview of the Ordinance, 1976 notwithstanding the transfer of the accused from one jurisdiction to the other. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others Vs. Md. Anwantl Islam 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 283. ....View Full Judgment

Section 3

Punishment like dismissal or removal in respect of a police personnel like the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, which can be awarded by the Inspector General of Police, can also be awarded under regulation No. 858 (a) (2) by the Superintendent of Police. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Sharfuddin Mollah 54 DLR (AD) 120. ....View Full Judgment

Section 3

Police Regulation of Bengal (PRB), Regulatlon—858(a)(1)
There are two parts of section 3 of the Ordinance. The second part indicates that the overriding provision in the first part of section 3 does not exclude the operation of the law, rules and regulations including PRB in force prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance. It is for the authority to decide whether a delinquent police personnel would be proceeded under the Ordinance or pre-existing law/rules. As pre-existing law remained valid, disciplinary proceedings under Regulation No. 858 of the PRB has been legally initiated. Moreover, Regulation 858 (a)(2) empowers the Superintendent of Police to award a police personnel, i.e. Sub-inspector of Police, any punishment, i.e. dismissal, removal, which may be awarded by the Inspector General or Deputy Inspector General of Police under Regulation No. 858(a)(1). Thus AT was in error in holding that Superintendent of Police can only award punishment to Sub-Inspector of Police under Regulation 858(a)(1)(iv), i.e. censure or reprimand. Government of Bangladesh and others V. Md.Sharifuddin Mollah, 22 BLD (AD) 237. ....View Full Judgment

Section 7A

The Administrative Appellate Tribunal was therefore patently wrong in holding that the limitation could not be counted from 14-9-1989 when the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the appellant's application preferred against the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police on 21-10-1988. It seems that the Appellate Tribunal being unaware of the aforesaid Ordinances and under some misconception of the provisos above, committed error in deciding the point of limitation. Shaikh Mustainul Haque vs Inspector General of Police and others 47 DLR (AD) 157. ....View Full Judgment

Appellate authority under P.O. (S.P) Order
Even the appellate authority that is the Government cannot be said to be exercising any part of IL judicial power of the State. Such appellate authority does not come within the ambit of sub—article (5) of Article 102 and is not a tribunal within the meaning of Art. 102(5) of the constitution. Bangladesh Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sarker and others (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 173.

—Authorities mentioned in Police Officers (S.P)’ Ordinance are not a tribunal — Police Officers of sated rank — Invoking of writ jurisdiction. Bangladesh Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sarkar and others (1982) 34 (AD) 173. ....View Full Judgment