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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.