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.
|
Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Sayed Shafiqul Islam |
12 BLT (AD) 130 |
Section 3
|
The Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section 3 r/w
Bangladesh Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation, 1979
Regulation–6
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
|
Bangladesh =VS= Md. Bellal Hossain Mollik |
1 LM (AD) 86 |
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.
|
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others Vs. Md. Anwantl Islam |
14 MLR (AD) 283 |
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.
|
Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Sharfuddin Mollah |
54 DLR (AD) 120 |
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.
|
Government of Bangladesh and others V. Md.Sharifuddin Mollah |
22 BLD (AD) 237 |
Section 3
|
Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section 3 read with
Bangladesh Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulation, 1979
Regulation 6:
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 & anr Vs Md.
Bellal Hossain Mollik & anr, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 65
Opinion of Public Service Commission is not binding on the authority. The
consultation with the Public Service Commission is mandatory before passing
the orders of dismissal of both the respondents though the opinion of
Public Service Commission is not binding on the authority. …Bangladesh &
anr Vs Md. Bellal Hossain Mollik & anr, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 65
....View Full Judgment
|
Bangladesh & anr Vs Md. Bellal Hossain Mollik & anr |
6 SCOB [2016] AD 65 |
Section 6
|
RAB Rules, 2005
Rule 11(7), 11(11) r/w
The Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section 6
Cardinal principal of natural justice requires supply of enquiry report to
the person against whom departmental action is being taken– The Tariqul
was on deputation in RAB and there is specific Rules i.e. Rules, 2005
providing special provisions for disciplinary action against the persons
who are working in RAB. Rule 11(7) of the Rules 2005 specifically provide
that,- “(৭) তদন্তকারী কর্মকর্তা
প্রতিটি অভিযোগ আলাদা
আলাদাভাবে আলোচনা করিয়া
তাহার রিপোর্ট কর্তৃপক্ষের
নিকট পেশ করিবেন এবং উহার এক
কপি অভিযুক্ত ব্যক্তিকে
সরবরাহ করিবেন। " Moreover, sub-rule (11) of rule
11 provides as under: “(১১) এই বিধির বিধান
সাপেক্ষে বিভাগীয়
কার্য-ধারায় আপীল ও রিভিউসহ
অন্যান্য ক্ষেত্রে সরকারী
কর্মচারী (শৃঙ্খলা ও আপীল)
বিধিমালা, ১৯৮৫, এর বিধানাবলী
প্রয়োজনীয় অভিযোজনসহ (mutatis mutandis)
অনুসরণীয় হইবে। " So, Government Servant
Disciplinary Appeals Rules, 1985, is also applicable in case of
departmental proceeding of the persons who are working in RAB on deputation
and rule 7(5) of the said Rules, 1985 also requires furnishing of a copy of
inquiry report to the person against whom departmental action is being
taken.
Jurisdiction of RAB commander-2 to initiate a departmental proceeding
against Tariqul, it appears that the Commander/Lieutenant Colonel is a
director as per schedule of the Rules, 2005 and so, under the Rules, 2005
he had jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding, etc. against the
petitioner-appellant, respondent herein. However, in the case in our hand
the departmental proceeding was not under the Rules, 2005. Thus, the second
part of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal so, far as it relates to the
jurisdiction of Lieutenant Colonel, we are of the view that if a
departmental action is taken under the Rules, 2005 in such case, the
Lieutenant Colonel, as a director, shall have jurisdiction to take
departmental action against a police constable on deputation in RAB.
We have already seen that the departmental proceeding was not held properly
due to non-supply of copy of enquiry report to Tariqul. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed. …Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Tariqul Islam,
(Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 40]
....View Full Judgment
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Tariqul Islam |
8 LM (AD) 40 |
Sections 6, 8
|
The Administrative Tribunal and Administrative Appellate Tribunal will not
sit as a Court of appeal against domestic enquiry unless its decision is
tainted with illegality, malafide and it acted without jurisdiction–
According to section 6 of the Police Officer (Special provisions)
Ordinance, 1976, Appellate Division is of the view that the provisions of
the said Ordinance does not contemplate formal inquiry to be held before
imposing penalty under the said Ordinance save and except follow the
provisions as expressly provides in the said Police Ordinance.
The procedure of enquiry against the police officer should be conducted
according to the provisions of the Ordinance, 1976 (Special Provisions),
the Administrative Tribunal and Administrative Appellate Tribunal will not
sit as a Court of appeal against domestic enquiry unless its decision is
tainted with illegality, malafide and it acted without jurisdiction. This
appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is
set aside and the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal is restored
without any order as to cost. .....Ministry of Home Affairs, BD =VS= Sree
Kazal Chandra Sutradhar, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 26]
....View Full Judgment
|
Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh =VS= Sree Kazal Chandra Sutradhar |
12 LM (AD) 26 |
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.
|
Shaikh Mustainul Haque vs Inspector General of Police and others |
47 DLR (AD) 157 |
Appellate authority under P.O. (S.P) Order
|
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.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sarker and others |
34 DLR (AD) 173 |