Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Rules 3 (c) and 8 |
It is well-settled that on the self-same allegation a departmental
proceeding against an employee is competent besides a proceeding in a Court
of law. Although in the present case the departmental proceeding was
started on the basis of the conviction of the respondent in the Summary
Martial Law Court but it was an independent enquiry in which the respondent
had examined several witnesses in his defence and no fault was found by
either of the tribunals with the enquiry procedure. The order of compulsory
retirement was passed following an independent enquiry and the said order
has been affirmed in appeal filed under the Rules.
|
Government of Bangladesh Vs Md. Abdul Karim, | 16 BLD (AD) 99 |
Rule 3(b) |
Serious scandal of corruption in connection with judicial functions.
|
Md. Aynul Haque -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh | 6 ALR (AD) 31 |
Section 4 (3) (b) |
In the instant case the Director General, who passed the impugned order of dismissal, had given current charge by a gazette notification dated 04.12.2003 by the concerned authority of the Government and as such, we are of the view that he had got every authority to exercise the administrative power and it cannot be said that he had acted illegally having no authority and jurisdiction and as such the Tribunal as well as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal committed serious error in passing the impugned judgment and order. .....Bangladesh & anr Vs. Nazrul Islam Biswas, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] AD 119 ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh & anr Vs. Nazrul Islam Biswas | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 119 |
Section 4 (3)(b) |
Compulsory retirement–– Current charge given to a particular officer by
an official notification has got some force of law, and when it is given
for unlimited period it is to be presumed that he has given all the
administrative and financial power of the institution–– Nitimalas it
transpires that the current charge given to a particular officer by an
official notification has got some force of law, and when it is given for
unlimited period it is to be presumed that he has given all the
administrative and financial power of the institution. The current charge
given by a gazette notification cannot be termed or treated that the
concerned officer will perform only day to day routine work, rather on the
strength of such notification he has been vested all the administrative
and financial power to be done in accordance with rules of business. Said
current charge cannot be equated as a stop gap arrangement.
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Nazrul Islam Biswas | 15 LM (AD) 535 |
Rule 4(6), 7(2)(c) |
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
|
Ministry of Forest, Bangladesh =VS= Kiran Sankar Sarker | 15 LM (AD) 447 |
Rule 4 (3) (a) |
Respondent was convicted by Summary Martial Law Court. After serving out
the sentences of imprisonment and after payment of fine the respondent
filed various representations to the Government for his re-instatement but
ultimately the authority dismissed the respondent from service — the
respondent filed Administrative Tribunal case, against the order of
dismissal. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case. But the
Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the order
of dismissal was passed illegally
|
Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Golam Rahman Mallic | 3 BLT (AD) 196 |
Section 4 (3) (b) |
When current charge is given for unlimited period it is to be presumed that
he has given all the administrative and financial power of the
institution:
|
Bangladesh & anr Vs. Nazrul Islam Biswas | 19 SCOB [2024] AD 119 |
Rules 4(3)(b), 12 |
Compulsory retirement–– Admittedly the allegation against the appellant was that he did not deposit the money earned from schedule sale to the Government exchequer in due time, but at a belated period for which the appellant sought exoneration and the appellant was not charged with misappropriation of the government money, which usually does not call for major punishment.–– As per record it appears that the appellant was appointed in the government service on 09.08.1986 and he has no stigma throughout his twenty four year’s service except the present allegation. Therefore, it is unnatural to impose major penalty i.e. compulsory retirement to the appellant for such minor offence. Accordingly, this Civil Appeal is allowed. .....Nazrul Islam(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 478] ....View Full Judgment |
Nazrul Islam(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh | 13 LM (AD) 478 |
Rule 4(b), 4(2)(b) |
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Mohd. Bazlur Rashid Akand | 12 LM (AD) 19 |
Rules 6 and 7 |
As per notification dated 24.6.86, the Secretary being the Designated
Officer can lawfully do everything except imposing a major penalty and the
same needs no approval of the President who is the appointing authority of
the respondent.
|
Government of Bangladesh and another Vs M.A. Malek, | 17 BLD (AD) 161 |
Rule 7(5), 10 |
The petitioner has been dismissed without getting any opportunity of being
heard, which is an absolute violation of the principle of natural
justice– The respondents-opposite parties failed to follow the procedures
provided in the Rules, 1985 accordingly. The petitioner was not given any
opportunity to be heard. The inquiry proceeding was held ex-parte, which
was not in accordance with law. At the same time the petitioner was not
given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to produce evidence in
his favour according to Rule 10 of the Rules, 1985.
|
Syedul Abrar(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh | 10 LM (AD) 301 |
Rule 7(5) |
Legal opinion—case of removal from service—the Enquiry Officer’s findings are never binding on the punishing authority who has the duty, obligation and jurisdiction to give an independent finding based not only on the enquiry report and papers submitted by the Enquiry Officer but also on other departmental reports and papers available to it—the law requires that the recording of reasons is a must where the punishing authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but the law does not require that the recording of reasons should be a Legal Opinion”. [Para- 13] Trading Corporation of Bangladesh Vs. Kazi Abdul Hye 6 BLT (AD)-8. |
Trading Corporation of Bangladesh Vs. Kazi Abdul Hye | 6 BLT (AD) 8 |
Rule 7 (2) |
Respondent was a permanent employee of the Public Health Engineering Department, having been posted last at Kushtia Sadar. He obtained leave from 1-7-76 to 3-7-76 on account of the illness of his father who along with his mother and his wife and children were at that time living at Magura town. He applied for extension of leave till 8-7-76. Thereafter he himself fell ill and applied for extension of leave. He reported for duty on 1-10-77 but came to learn that by an order dated 25.4.77 he had been discharged from service with effect from 1-7-76. He challenged the order of discharge on the ground that no proceedings were instituted against him for unauthorized absence or on any other allegations — held : Admittedly there is no dispute that the appellant sent a show cause notice to the respondent asking him to show cause why he shall not be removed from service on the charge of prolonged and continued absence from duties — for purposes of sending a show cause notice containing charges against him the appellant was not obliged to send the same to his fleeting address at Magura of even to cause the notice to be published in a newspaper — if the appellant had acted without appointing an enquiry officer in view of the preposterous facts presented by the respondent, then it cannot be said that the action taken was wholly without authority or in violation of the 1976 Rules. [Paras- 9 & 11] Superintending Engg. & Ors. Vs. K. Asaduzzaman & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-78 |
Superintending Engg. & Ors. Vs. K. Asaduzzaman & Ors. | 4 BLT (AD) 78 |
Rule 7 (11) |
The respondent was placed under suspension and a proceeding case drawn against him on a charge of misconduct on 23 February, 1982 under the Rules of 1976 and during the pending of this proceeding the new Rules of 1984 came into operation on 19.7.84. The respondent was compulsory retired from his service by the appellant on 20 February, 1985 — The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found that the respondent was giving of misconduct but allowed the appeal and set aside the order of retirement on the ground that the departmental proceeding falls within the mischief of Rule 7 (11) of the Rules of 1984 as the said proceeding was not completed within the time limit prescribed by this Rule — Held: In the present case, the respondent having not been served with the charge sheet under the Rules of 1984, sub-rule (ii) of Rule 7 is not applicable in the case of the respondent —we hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal grossly misinterpreted rule (ii) of-Rule 7 of the New Rules of 1984 and wrongly made the same applicable in the present case — Appeal is allowed. Additional General Manager & Anr Vs. Mizanur Rahman. 4BLT (AD)-122 |
Additional General Manager & Anr Vs. Mizanur Rahman. | 4 BLT (AD) 122 |
Rule 7 Read with Rule-6 (4) |
As per notification dated 24.6.86, the secretary being the designated officer can lawfully do everything except imposing a major penalty and the same needs no approval of President who is the appointing authority of the respondent. [Para-9] Bangladesh & Anr. Vs. M.A. Malek 5 BLT (AD)-222 |
Bangladesh & Anr. Vs. M.A. Malek | 5 BLT (AD) 222 |
Rule 7 (5) |
Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that with the second show cause notice that was served on respondent No. 1 a copy of the enquiry report was not annexed depriving respondent No. 1 of giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty the mandatory requirement of law having not been complied with, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly set aside the order of removal and reinstated respondent No. 1 to his service. [Para-2] Director Khulna Tele. Comm. Region Vs M. Islam & Anr 3 BLT (AD)-90. |
Director Khulna Tele. Comm. Region Vs M. Islam & Anr | 3 BLT (AD) 90 |
Rules 7(9) and 27 |
Disposal of departmental proceeding within specified time—
|
M.A. Hai and others - Vs- Trading Corporation of Bangladesh. | 8 BLD (AD) 84 |
Rule 7(5) |
It requires that on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer or the
Board of Enquiry, the authority shall consider the report and record its
findings on the charge.
|
The Trading Corporation of Bangladesh, represented by its Chairman Vs Kazi Abdul Hye, | 17 BLD (AD) 156 |
Rule 7(9) |
Completion of departmental proceeding within 150 days
|
Md. Abdus Salam Vs Govt. of Bangladesh, represented by the Collector of Customs and Excise, Dhaka and others, | 17 BLD (AD) 214 |
Rules 7(6) & 10(8) |
Whether Inquiry Committee has authority to recommend any punishment
|
Education Board Camilla & Ors Vs. Md. Shafiqul Islam | 20 BLT (AD) 263 |
Rule 7(5) |
Requirement of Providing Inquiry Report along with the second show cause
notice:
|
Md. Syedul Abrar Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & ors. | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 102 |
Rule 8 |
Dismissal on ground of conviction— Constitution of Bangladesh- Article
102- Rejection of Writ Petition- on ground of laches and inordinate delay-
|
Md. Fazlur Rahman Akhonda (Md.) & others Vs. Government of Bangladesh. | 5 MLR (AD) 65 |
Rule 10(8) |
Power of Enquiry officer—Under Rule 10(8) an Enquiry officer shall give only his finding whether the accused is guilty or not guilty and shall not make any recommendation as to punishment or otherwise. Further. an enquiry shall be completed within the specified period. Bashir Ahmed -Vs- Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation and others. 12BLD (AD) 125 |
Bashir Ahmed -Vs- Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation and others. | 12 BLD (AD) 125 |
Rule 10 |
In disciplinary matters the provisions of the Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and the principles of natural justice
are required to be followed properly:
|
Md. Syedul Abrar Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & ors. | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 102 |
Rule 11(3) |
Further enquiry—It is not required that a further inquiry is to be made after reinstating the Government servant whose removal order has been set aside by a Court of law or Administrative Tribunal. Once the authority decided to hold a further inquiry, the Government servant “shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the authority from the date of original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further order”. The condition of further inquiry. however, is that the decision to do so shall have to be taken within 30 days from the date of decision of the Court or Administrative Tribunal. Muhammad Muslim Au -Vs- The Secretary, Ministry of Establishment and others. 12BLD(AD)193 |
Muhammad Muslim Au -Vs- The Secretary, Ministry of Establishment and others. | 12 BLD (AD) 193 |
Rule 11(3) |
Provides for suspension of a Government servant whose dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement is setaside by Court or tribunal when the authority
decides to hold further inquiry—
|
Government of Bangladesh and others Vs. A.K.M. Fazlul Haque | 11 MLR (AD) 210 |
Rule 11(1) |
Suspension order is a temporary arrangement and it is quite supported by the Rules, 1985— As per Rule 11(1) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 any government servant may be put under suspension for the purpose of initiation of any departmental proceeding against him and for holding impartial/smooth enquiry thereof. This suspension order is a temporary arrangement and it is quite supported by the Rules. It is not correct that before initiation of any proceeding no order of suspension can be passed. There is also no material on record to show that this impugned suspension order was malafide. Moreover, if the writ-petitioner felt himself aggrieved by the impugned suspension order he could have gone to the Administrative Tribunal for seeking redress and in the circumstances the writ-petition challenging the suspension order from service is not maintainable at all. —Hence the impugned order dated 13.04.2003 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2266 of 2003 be set aside and the said writ petition be disposed of accordingly. .....Ministry of Food, Bangladesh =VS= Mohammad Nurul, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 28] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Food, Bangladesh =VS= Mohammad Nurul | 14 LM (AD) 28 |
Rule 11(3) |
The impugned order of punishment imposed on the petitioner had been illegal
for non-service of any second show cause notice and also for not supplying
the enquiry report, as per requirement of law before imposition of the
punishment.
|
The State -Vs.- Abdul Halim | 5 ALR (AD) 130 |
Rule 22(2) |
From a combined reading of the provisions of Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 46 of the Service Regulations of 2011 and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985, the position that emerges is that the appellate authority will pass such orders as it deems just and equitable, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case. Given this scenario, it cannot be said that the appellate authority committed any illegality by way of forming a three-member inquiry committee and acting upon the report dated 29.05.2013 of that committee. ...Md. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh & Ors., 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 18 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. | 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 18 |
Rule 23 |
Time spent on review to be excluded in computing limitation.
|
Md. Jahangir Kabir Vs Bangladesh, | 16 BLD (AD) 85 |
Rule 27 |
A reference to rule 27 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 makes it clear that the Rules of 1984 were repealed and as per sub-rule (2). of rule 27 of the Rules of 1985 there was no bar in disposing of the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1985 as the proceeding was pending at the commencement of the Rules of 1985. Syed Masudur Rahman Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., 18 BLD (AD) 245. |
Syed Masudur Rahman Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., | 18 BLD (AD) 245 |