বাংলাদেশ কৃষি গবেষণা ইনস্টিটিউট (বারি) আইন, ২০১৭
Sections 7, 9(3), 12
বাংলাদেশ কৃষি গবেষণা ইনস্টিটিউট (কর্মকর্তা ও কর্মচারী) চাকুরি প্রবিধানমালা, ২০১১
Regulation 2(10)
Quorum non-judice–– Under Regulation 2(10) of বাংলাদেশ কৃষি গবেষণা ইনস্টিটিউট (কর্মকর্তা ও কর্মচারী) চাকুরি প্রবিধানমালা, ২০১১ appointing authority means ‘Board’ or the persons empowered by the ‘Board’ to appoint any person to certain post. Section 7 of the Act, 2017 stipulates constitution of the ‘Board’ with total 11 members. But the decision of the dismissal order of the petitioner was taken by 4(four) members of the ‘Board’ though Section 9(3) of the Act, 2017 provides:
“(৩) বোর্ডের সভার কোরামের জন্য উহার মোট সদস্য সংখ্যার অন্যূন অর্ধেক সদস্যের উপস্থিতির প্রয়োজন হইবে, তবে মুলতবি সভার ক্ষেত্রে কোন কোরামের প্রয়োজন হইবে না।”
Appellate Division is in agreement with the findings of the High Court Division that the impugned order of dismissal cannot be treated as ‘Board’ decision due to quorum non-judice. ––The High Court Division also found from record that the inquiry officer stated in his report that he took some evidence of some officers of the institute but nowhere in that report it was mentioned that the examination of those persons was held in presence of the petitioner or the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine them.
The writ-petitioner had already retired from service, Appellate Division finds rationality in the prayer of the learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 regarding modification of the direction in the impugned judgment and order. “The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner’s arrear salary and allowances as the Deputy Director (Administration) in the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur in accordance with the service Rule of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (Officer and Employee) Service Regulations, 2011 within 3(three) months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment and order.” .....Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute =VS= Md. Mustafizur Rahman, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 584] ....View Full Judgment

বাংলাদেশ কৃষি গবেষণা ইনস্টিটিউট (করমচারী) চাকুরী প্রবিধানমালা, ১৯৯০
Rule 7 r/w
বাংলাদেশ কৃষি গবেষণা ইনস্টিটিউট (করমকরতা ও করমচারী) চাকুরী প্রবিধানমালা, ২০১১
Promotion–
The writ-petitioner and writ-respondent No.4 joined the BARI long before the 2011 Service Rules, their service will be regulated by the Service Rules of 1990. According to rule 7 of the Rules, 1990, the appointing authority is the Board and any decision regarding promotion is also to be decided by the Board. The Board of Management in its 51st meeting on 27.01.2014 noted that the writ-petitioner is senior to writ-respondent No.4. Noting also that it was necessary that the candidate for promotion should have five years’ experience as Assistant Director, the proposal was put forward recommending promotion of the writ-petitioner. After discussion the Board unanimously decided to approve the promotion of the writ-petitioner. We find no reason to doubt the competence and legality of the decision taken by the Board of Management. The appeal is allowed, without however, any order as to costs. The writ-respondents, other than writ-respondent No.4, are directed to pay all the benefits to the appellant as Senior Assistant Director from the date of his promotion to that post. ...Mahbubur Rahman Basunia(Md.)=VS=Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 76] ....View Full Judgment

BARI Service Regulations 1990
Regulation 16(1)
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Act, 2001
Section 59 (2) (Ja)
Deputation order— The petitioner as in continuous service in the same status and to allow him to draw his salary and emoluments— The evidence and materials on record clearly show that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein had all along challenged his order of deputation, patently keeping his lien of his parent post and repeatedly requesting for cancellation of the order of deputation. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 was absorbed by the Bangladesh Agricultural Institute or the University and, therefore, not in the service of BARI. It is our view that respondent No.1 was employed by BARI and his status continued as such. He was sent to Bangladesh Agricultural Institute on deputation and served there while holding lien over his original post. The institute later became the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University. His exercise of the option to return to his original post in accordance with the Act by which the University came into being is clear evidence of the fact that he was never absorbed as an employee of the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University. Accordingly, Appellate Division holds that the writ-petitioner retained his lien over the post of Senior Assistant Director (Administration) of the BARI. Hence, this Division need not discuss the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellants which relate to his service. The High Court Division has elaborately discussed the evidence and materials on record and upon proper assessment of the facts and circumstances made the Rule absolute in part declaring the impugned notices to have been passed without lawful authority and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service in the same status and to allow him to draw his salary and emoluments. .....Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute =VS= Kazi Md. Sadequl Islam, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 313] ....View Full Judgment

Computation as period of limitation
On reading the provision of Regulation 43(8) of the regulations we are of the opinion that day on which show cause / charge sheet was communicated to a delinquent employee of an organization. herein the appellant, the said date is to be excluded since the same is in consonant with the rules of computation of period either for the purpose of limitation of legal proceeding or enquiry before the Tribunal or for the departmental enquiry. The language of the Regulation 43(8) shows that the day on which show cause - charge sheet was submitted the same is to be excluded.
Md. Ashequr Rahman Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 14 BLT(AD)01

প্রবিধানমালা-২০১১: It is true that Chapter Seven of the Service Regulations of 2011 is captioned “সাধারণ আচরন ও শৃংখলা”. But none the less, it appears from the language employed in Regulation 46(1) that the appellate authority can hear any appeal preferred against any order by an aggrieved employee and the appeal need not be confined to matters arising out of disciplinary proceedings only.... the appellate authority can entertain any appeal against any order of the authority, whether it relates to disciplinary proceedings or not, under Regulation 46 of the Service Regulations of 2011. ...Md. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh & Ors., 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 18 ....View Full Judgment