Words ‘মামলা দায়ের’ means institution of a case by submission of a charge-sheet by an officer of the Commission, before the concerned Court and certainly not an first information report as envisaged under section 154 the Code of Criminal Procedure or a complaint (অভিযোগ) as envisaged under Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules.
The irresistible conclusion is that no sanction will be required to file a complaint (অভিযোগ) either with the Commission or with the police. But sanction from the Commission shall be required both under the unamended and the amended 32, before institution of a case “মামলা দায়েরের ক্ষেত্রে” in the concerned Court. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

An officer of the Commission lodged a first information report on 6-3-2007 with the Tejgaon Police Station and a case started. This is not envisaged under rules 3and 4 of the Rules. Those Rules provide only for filing of the complaint involving the offences mentioned in the schedule to the Act. However, those provisions are merely directory and deviation from provisions in lodging an first information report instead of a complaint, would not vitiate the proceedings. Anti-Corruption vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Commissioners resigned from the Commission on 7-2-2007 and it was reconstituted on 24-2-2007, as such, although the Commission existed as an Institution on 18-2-2007, when the notice was issued, but there was no Commission within the meaning of section 3 read with section 5 of the Act on that date. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 19
Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007
Rule 8 and 11 and 20
If Appellate Division meticulously examine the above two provisions i.e., section 19 of the Act, 2004 and 20 of Rules, 2007, coupled with rule 8 and 11 of the above Rules, then this Division has no hesitation to hold that those provisions have been made for the interest and benefit of a person(s) against whom an inquiry or investigation is going on as he is giving opportunity to defend himself in inquiry or investigation stage. Thus, there is no room to say that issuance of such notice by the Commission or its authorized officer is harassing, malafide and prejudiced to the concerned person(s). .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Ashraful Haque, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 499] ....View Full Judgment

Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 read with
Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 And
Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 And
Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007
Rule 16:
A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings. …Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Md. Rezaul Kabir & ors, (Criminal), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 144 ....View Full Judgment

The Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A r/w
Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007
Rule 16
A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings. .....Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Rezaul Kabir, [3 LM (AD) 509] ....View Full Judgment

Settled proposition of law as laid down in the cases of Dr. Narul Islam Vs. Bangladesh, 33 DLR(AD)201; BADC and another vs. Md. Shamsul Hoque Majumder and others, 60 DLR (AD)152 and Abdul Hoque and another vs. Bangladesh, 68 DLR(AD)235 that mere harshness or unreasonableness or arbitrariness cannot be a ground to declare a law void or inconsistent with the provision of the constitution and, that if an incumbent is entitled to get relief without declaring a law void, the Court will give such relief. The Anti-Corruption Commission should follow the following observations/guidelines in order to exercise power given under Rule 54(2) of the Service Rules-
i. the Durnity Daman Commission (Karmachari) Chakuri Bidhimala, 2008 has prescribed the procedure to initiate departmental proceeding against an employee for the offence committed by him including misconduct affording all opportunities of Principle of Natural Justice and ensuring all rights to defend his case hence, it should not apply the provisions of Rule 54 (2) of the Durnity Daman Commission (Karmachari) Chakuri Bidhimala,, 2008 at first to get rid an employee unless situation demands so;
ii. the provisions of Termination Simplicitor should not be used in a fanciful manner when there is other way out;
iii. since bidhi 54 (2) of the Durnity Daman Commission (Karmachari)Chakuri Bidhimala, 2008 has given unfettered and unguided power to the Anti-Corruption Commission authority to get rid of any employee who is causing displeasure to them without assigning any reason which is opposed to the 'Principle of Natural Justice" and of 'audi alteram partem' therefore, it is expected that the authority must exercise the power under Rule-54 (2) the Service Rules of 2008 with utmost care and caution;
iv. since bidhi 54 (2) of the Durnity Daman Commission (Karmachari)Chakuri Bidhimala, 2008 creates a sense of insecurity in the minds of the employees to perform their duties with honesty and courage therefore, under rule 54 (2) of the Service Rules of 2008 the employer must exercise the power only in special cases where it is necessary and other employees also find the decision of the authority as rational;
v. an employee of Anti-Corruption Commission usually works with serious cases of corruption and misappropriation of power and position committed by the most powerful stake holders of the country including the most powerful businessman, politicians of the country and the bureaucrats of the Governments, the authority while exercising the power of ‘Termination’ must remain careful that nobody is victimized at the behest of high ups;
vi. the service of an employee of a Statutory Corporation, Public Body, National Enterprise etc. is not like that of a master and servant rather their tenure of service and other terms and condition are based on the relevant Statute and the Service Regulations, Thus extra ordinary power to terminate any employees with three months’ notice or pay in lieu of who has served a long time is always discouraged;.
vii. case of every employee is required to be dealt with on merit by the concerned authority before they decide to terminate him from his job. Since the law empowers the authorities with such extra ordinary weapon, it should be used only in an extra ordinary situation and as a last resort, on consideration of individual merit of each and every case and not otherwise;
viii. an employee should not be terminated by using Rule 54 (2) as a tool in the garb of a constructive dismissal;
ix. without assigning any reason as envisaged in Rule 54 (2) does not mean without having any reasons. Reason or reasons must be recorded in the note sheet before the Authorities take its decision to terminate an employee;
x. selection for Termination under Rule 54 (2) shall be made fairly and justly, without any pick and choose, without any bias, without any discrimination under the mandate of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The parameters of such termination has to be set in accordance with the equality provision of the Constitution;
xi. the authority must act rationally in its decision making process within the concept of Wednesbury Reasonableness;
xii. no employee should be terminated from his service against whom any departmental proceeding has already been initiated and pending with specific charges; in that situation, the authority must conclude the proceeding and punish the accused if he is found guilty. Not in any other manner. It is also expected that all the Government, Semi-government, Autonomous bodie(s), Corporation(s), Statutory bodie(s), institution(s) should follow the above observations/guidelines in taking action of termination against its employee whatever discretionary power has been conferrer given in the relevant law/Rules. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Ahsan Ali, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 93] ....View Full Judgment