Rules 11.3(a)iv, viii & xii read with rule 11.3(d)
|
Removal from service–
The allegation was brought against the writ petitioner on 17.04.2006 and
142 working days had elapsed. In such circumstances, the High Court
Division took the view that the impugned order of removal from service was
illegal and violative of the provision of law. We do not find any
explanation as to how the sum of money allegedly misappropriated increased
from the initial claim of Tk. 1,64,000/-. Since the higher amount of money
alleged to have been misappropriated was not the subject matter of the
initial show cause notice nor of the inquiry, the writ petitioner could not
lawfully be burdened with the subsequent increased amount of money alleged
to have misappropriated. We note that in the affidavit-in-opposition the
writ respondent did not raise any further issue with respect to the
increased amount of money alleged to have been misappropriated. The writ
petitioner having explained the amount initially alleged to have been
misappropriated, the allegations against her appear to have been explained
by her. We do not find any illegality in the decision taken by the High
Court Division that the removal from service of the respondent was illegal
and violative of the provision of law. .....Bangladesh Red Crescent Society
=VS= Dr. Farida Yasmin Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 85]
....View Full Judgment
|
Bangladesh Red Crescent Society =VS= Dr. Farida Yasmin Chowdhury |
4 LM (AD) 85 |