The High Court Division upon hearing the parties discharged the Rule with a direction to pay all financial benefit to him–– Notably, in section 4 and 5 of the Ordinance, 1976 the various offenses and the provisions of punishment have been spelt out chronologically. According to section 6, if Bangladesh Rifle’s any member commits any criminal offense, then after holding an inquiry and giving him opportunity for self-defense any penalty prescribed in Section 5 can be imposed. Against the said penalty appeal can also be filed before the appropriate authority as per Section 7 of the Ordinance, 1976. But according to the provision of Section 8, it appears that if any member of Bangladesh Rifles is inconvenient to be retained in service or contrary to the interests of Bangladesh Rifles, the appropriate authority without assigning any reason can discharge him from his service or send him for premature retirement with service benefits. Since the order of termination has been passed under section 8 of the Ordinance, 1976 it would be not punitive and it must be assumed that the respondent No. 1 has been discharged from the service of Bangladesh Rifles though the Bengali term “বহিস্কার” has been used there for the word ‘discharge’ inappropriately. So, whatever submissions in this regard of the learned Advocate for the respondent does not hold good being falacious one. But the respondent No. 1 could be entitled to get the financial benefits following the above provisions of law. However, Appellate Division would like to note that in future, Bangladesh Rifles authorities will try to use the correct Bengali synonym of ‘discharge’ to resolve this doubt. .....Ministry of Home Affairs, BD =VS= Md. Abdul Mannan, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 453] ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 (BDR Ordinance)
Sections 6, 8, 9
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 104
The established principle of law in this regard is that, even where there is an ouster clause barring court’s jurisdiction, court still possesses authority to examine whether the concerned authority followed the procedures established in any Act or law. In addition, as the Apex Court of the land Appellate Division is empowered to do anything for doing “complete justice” under Article 104 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. ––The procedure mentioned above i.e. frame of charges, specifying therein the penalty proposed to be imposed, communicating it to the accused, requiring him to show cause within a specified time, giving an opportunity of being heard in person were not followed. As such, our considered view is that, writ is very much maintainable and as procedure established by were not followed the impugned discharge order is vitiated and worth of declaring without lawful authority. .....Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh =VS= Md. Golam Mostafa, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 86] ....View Full Judgment

Discharging from service under Section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles Ordinance, 1976— The writ respondent No.2- appellant No.2 categorically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that two separate departmental enquiries were held and he was found guilty of misappropriating seized smuggled goods instead of depositing those to the Customs House. The inquiry board apportioned blame to him for falsehood and destroying of evidence. In addition, another inquiry board found him guilty of misappropriating Tk.1,47,500.00 which was the money allotted for maintenance and repair works to different border outposts. In the given circumstances, the concerned authority had the valid reason to form an opinion as to the continuance of the respondent in service was inexpedient or not in the interest of the Bangladesh Rifles. Undoubtedly, while discharging a member from service under Section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles Ordinance, 1976 the authority is not required by law to assign any reason in this regard. However, the delinquent member is entitled to service benefits to which he may be entitled under law. In view of the above factual and legal aspects of the case, Appellate Division is of the view that the respondent is entitled to service benefits admissible to him by law. .....Ministry of Home Affairs, BD =VS= Md. Abdur Razzaque, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 255] ....View Full Judgment

Competent authority to dismiss a Havildar from service—
The writ petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal from service on ground that the said order was not passed by the competent authority. The High Court Division allowed the writ petition. The apex court found that the writ petitioner did not produce the order of his dismissal from service. But from the papers produced by the respondent it is found that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority and as such set aside the impugned judgment and order. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 515.