Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act–
Provisions of the Act that it shall be applicable for all the persons in the service of the Republic. The Act shall also be applicable to the employees of statutory bodies only when it is included in the Schedule to the Act. On careful scrutiny of the Schedule to the Act, it transpires that Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the Act was not applicable to the writ petitioner. Since, the Act was/is not applicable to the writ petitioner and he had no other equally efficacious remedy available in any other forum, provided by any law, the High Court Division rightly found the writ petition to be maintainable. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. …Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Humaiyun Kabir(Md), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 109] ....View Full Judgment

The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111

The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 911 .

The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104.

There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111.

The Writ petition is not maintainable–
The Grameen Bank being in the list of enterprises contained in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, matters relating to service of the employees of the Grameen Bank would have to be referred to the Administrative Tribunal. As such any petition under the writ jurisdiction relating to service matters of the Grameen Bank is not maintainable. Challenging the vires of the regulations was merely a ploy to bring the matter within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. As it happens, the writ petitioners challenged the regulation Nos. 13.1 and 13.5 in Chapter-Three of the regulations which are not applicable to their cases. We are of the view that the challenge to the vires of regulations 13.1 and 13.5 of the Bidhimala was totally misconceived and that the Grameen Bank being an enterprise listed within the schedule of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, the writ petitions were not maintainable. …Birendra Nath Ojha =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 358] ....View Full Judgment

Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1983
Rule 2 (I), 2(2), 3(b)
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4(2)
Code of Civil Procedure
Section 21
The Deputy Registrar who in the absence of the Registrar was in- charge of the office of the Registrar— The order of removal from service was passed— The AAT was of the view that in proceeding against the Respondent there was violation of the Rules since the 2nd show cause notice was issued on the direction of the Chief Justice and in taking final decision for awarding punishment the same was not placed before the Chief Justice, but was considered by the Registrar (appellant) and finally he awarded the punishment. The fact being that it is the Registrar who is the competent authority in respect of the Respondent for taking disciplinary action and that the Registrar on consideration of the materials on record having made the decision for awarding punishment to the Respondent and having passed the order of removal the same in my view can not be said to have been passed in violation of the Rules. The opinions in this appeal are equally divided, the Judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is maintained. Consequently this appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Supreme Court of Bangladesh =VS= Md Shafiuddin, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 270] ....View Full Judgment

Jurisdiction to file AT case– The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 along with the schedule annexed thereto it appears that the Anti-Corruption Commission has not been included therein and, as such, the decision referred to above squarely applies in this case. Again the Anti-Corruption Commission being creature of statute and unless that statutory body is included in the schedule to the Act, 1980, there arises no question of availability of the jurisdiction before the Administrative Tribunal.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 is applicable to all persons in the service of the Republic as well as to the employees of statutory bodies which have been included in the schedule to the said Act, 1980. Since the Act is not applicable in the case of the writ petitioner and since he had no other equally efficacious alternative remedy available in any other forum provide by any law, the writ petition is maintainable. Civil appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ...Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Ahsan Ali(Md), (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 113] ....View Full Judgment

We note that the Appellate Tribunal found that there was no dispute that the petitioner (respondent herein) cross-
examined some other P.Ws. We also note from the papers that the respondent was given personal hearing as requested by him and he was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal shifted the burden on to the appellant to prove that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses whose evidence led to his finding of guilt. When the delinquent employee alleges any defect in the proceeding then it is his burden to prove such allegation. In the face of admission that some of the P.Ws were cross-examined, we cannot accept that the respondent did not get the opportunity to cross-examine the other P.Ws. The respondent was compulsorily retired, which means that he will get all his employment benefits up to the date of the order of his retirement. We find that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. The impugned order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The order of the Administrative Tribunal is restored. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Isa Md. Nizamul Islam, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 70] ....View Full Judgment

Promotion–
The Tribunal also declared that the appellant was entitled to his seniority on the basis of his past service with all “attendant benefits towards promotion from the date of which his juniors” were promoted along with increments, time scale, fixation of pay etc with arrears. Against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.
We are constrained to hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the appeal, setting aside those of the Administrative Tribunal and we find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is allowed. The decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside and those of the Administrative Tribunal are restored. .....Md. Mahmudul Haque =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 123] ....View Full Judgment

The Administrative Appellate Tribunal came into a finding that while passing the impugned decision the Administrative Tribunal failed to consider that the departmental proceeding against respondent No.1 was not initiated and disposed of legally and that the Administrative Tribunal arrived at a wrong finding in disallowing the case causing serious miscarriage of justice. The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. .....Janata Bank & another =VS= Md. Minhaj Uddin Ahmed & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 178] ....View Full Judgment

The termination of the appellant was a “termination simpliciter” without attaching any stigma and that in fact no departmental proceedings were brought against the appellant in spite of serious allegations against him. In such a situation it would be illogical to sustain the order of the Administrative Tribunal thereby reinstating the appellant in service on an unwilling employer. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to get 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal in part setting aside the judgement of the Administrative Tribunal. The respondent Grameen Bank is hereby directed to pay the appellant Md. Azizul Haque salary for two years at the rate which was paid to him as on the date of his termination of service. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs. .....Azizul Haque(Md.) =VS= Grameen Bank, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment

Limitation–
The finding of the Administrative Tribunal in respect of limitation in filing the cases is wrong and contrary to the provision of the 2nd proviso to section 4(2) of the Act. The respondents were dismissed from service following the procedures as contained in Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and as such the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeals, which, however, did not consider the question of limitation at all. We find substance in all the appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal affirming the decision of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. .....Ministry of Finance =VS= Md. Mominur Rahman, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 335] ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Krishi Bank Order 1973 (P.O.27 of 1973)
Articles 7, 8, 9, 34
Bangladesh Krishi Bank Rules 1983
Rule 4
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980
Section 4(2)
Compulsory retirement— It appears that the Managing Director was the appointing authority of Deputy General Managers of the Bank and undisputedly the petitioner was a Deputy General Manager of the Bank at the time of his compulsory retirement. Since the Managing Director was the appointing and promoting authority of the respondent No.1, a Deputy General Manager, definitely the Managing Director was also the competent authority to issue the order of his compulsory retirement. Even for argument’s sake if it is conceded that the Board of Directors of the Bank was the competent authority to issue the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent No.1 and not the Managing Director, then also the respondent No.1, in our view, could not make out a case against impugned order as the same was issued under the signature of the Deputy General Manager of the Bank under Order of the competent authority. Moreover, under rules of 1983 and by delegation of power the Managing Director was the competent authority being the appointing authority of the Respondent No.1 to issue the impugned order of his compulsory retirement.
Appellate Division is of opinion that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal committed error of law in holding that the Managing Director of the Bank was not the competent authority to issue the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the Respondent No.1 and as such the same requires interference by us. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. .....Bangladesh Krishi Bank =VS= A.F.M. Farid Uddin, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 641] ....View Full Judgment

Considering the legal position the Administrative:Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General/ Secretary, Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94.

Transfer of a trade union leader—Plea of, protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority—Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C.—The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal which has the full power to give complete relief to applicant. The right of a trade union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIIII of 1969) S. 47B Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2). Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another; 10 BLD (AD) 71.

Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60

Mr. Mahbubcy Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60

The Code of Civil Procedure
Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 r/w
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4(2)
Compulsory retirement with giving all the due service benefits–– Since the Agrani Bank was not complying with the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the respondent filed Miscellaneous A.T. Case No. 8 of 2008 (Execution) under order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon hearing the parties the application was allowed by order dated 17.01.2012 directing the [07]concerned authorities to pay all the dues to the respondent up to 26.10.2008, the date on which he was reinstated. This order was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgement dated 12.02.2013. ––It is patently clear that Agrani Bank Limited has not complied with the earlier order passed by the Administrative Tribunal which was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. That order, having not been challenged, is binding upon the Agrani Bank Limited. .....Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Md. Salek Uddin, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 179] ....View Full Judgment

Petitioners have not been given· any right· under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hajizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147.

Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority– It appears that by the order of the authority dated 06.10.1998 the appellant was demoted to his lower rank for a period of two years, against which he filed appeal before the authority, namely the Government, on 13.10.1998. The appellate authority by order dated 12.08.1999 demoted the appellant to his lower rank for ever. The appellant then filed a case before the Administrative Tribunal on 08.02.2000 challenging both the orders dated 06.10.1998 and 12.08.1999. However, the requirement of the law as enunciated in the second proviso to section 4(2)of the Act, 1980 is that the case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee’s appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal. .....Anwar Hossain Biswas =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 173] ....View Full Judgment

In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65.

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 117(1), 117(2)
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4(2)
The Administrative Tribunal cannot direct the Government to amend the law as well as it cannot direct the Government to give promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub- Assistant Settlement Officer because the promotion is not a right–– It appears from words used in the order of the High Court Division that the Administrative Tribunal by its decision directed the concerned authority to take steps by amending respective “Bidhimala” for giving promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub-Assistant Settlement Officer. In fact, by the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal directed to amend the law in giving positive relief of the writ petitioners which can not be allowed. The Administrative Tribunal cannot direct the Government to amend the law as well as it cannot direct the Government to give promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub- Assistant Settlement Officer because the promotion is not a right.–– The writ respondents may consider the case of writ petitioners following the provisions of law, if they are at all entitled. .....Rabiul Karim(Md.) =VS= Golam Morshed Khan, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 272] ....View Full Judgment

Period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal– This Court in a number of cases earlier decided that it is the 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso, i.e. two months plus six months which shall govern the period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal and a case filed before the Administrative Tribunal after the expiry of the said period (two months + six months) shall be barred by limitation.
We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the case filed before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation.
When admittedly, the case in hand was filed before the Administrative Tribunal long after the period of six months after the expiry of the period of two months from the date of filing the departmental appeal as provided in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, the opposite parties appellant could very much raise the point of limitation in the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal rightly entertained the same, and decided the point against the petitioner. We find no merit in the leave petitions and accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. …AKM Jalaluddin Ahmed =VS= Ministry of Education, BD, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 335] ....View Full Judgment

The Administrative Tribunal is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 to hear and determine applications made by any person in the service of Republic or statutory public authority as specified in the schedule in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or in respect of any action taken in relation to him in the service as aforesaid. The proviso to sub section (2) of section 4 provides that "no application in respect of an order, decision or action which can be set aside, varied or modified by a higher administrative authority under any law for the time being inforce relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority or the discipline of that service could be made to the Administrative Tribunal until such higher authority has taken a decision on the matter". The applicant must be an aggrieved person by any order or decision or action taken by the authority which confers the powers and jurisdiction of the higher Administrative Tribunal subject to fulfilment of two conditions as provided in the proviso.
The Administrative Tribunal has no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within 6(six) months of making a decision by the higher Administrative authority. Since no decision was given by the higher authority the application under section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act was not maintainable. …Ministry of Food, Bangladesh =VS= A.B.M. Siddique Mia, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 240] ....View Full Judgment

The case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal– By the order of the authority dated 06.10.1998 the appellant was demoted to his lower rank for a period of two years, against which he filed appeal before the authority, namely the Government, on 13.10.1998. The appellate authority by order dated 12.08.1999 demoted the appellant to his lower rank for ever.. The appellant then filed a case before the Administrative Tribunal on 08.02.2000 challenging both the orders dated 06.10.1998 and 12.08.1999. However, the requirement of the law as enunciated in the second proviso to section 4(2)of the Act, 1980 is that the case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal.
The point of limitation was elaborately discussed in the case of Md. Nazimuddin vs Government of Bangladesh and ors reported in 17 BLC (AD)10.
The decision of the Administrative Tribunal was dated 12.10.2002 and the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was filed on 23.4.2003 which is beyond the period of six months stipulated in section 6(2A) of the Act, 1980.
The result the appeal is disposed of. The order of the Administrative Tribunal as well as the judgement and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal are set aside. The order passed by the Government, being the appellate authority, is hereby held as not valid in law and is of no legal effect. The order of the concerned departmental authority sentencing the appellant to a lower rank for a period of two years is upheld. The appellant will receive all the service benefits that accrued to him, apart from the period of two years of punishment ordered by the departmental authority. …Anwar Hossain Biswas =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4(2)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Articles 117(2), 118(4), 126
Election Commission Secretariat Act, 2009
Section 3
Termination of their service— By the judgment and order dated 23.03.2009, the Administrative Tribunal No.1, Dhaka dismissed A.T. Case No.22 of 2008 and A. T. Case No.166 of 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants/ petitioners preferred A.A.T. Case Nos.134 of 2009, 139 of 2009, 143 of 2009 and 144 of 2009 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and, by judgment and order dated 12.04.2010, the appeals were allowed on contest. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1, as petitioner, preferred Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1302 of 2010, 1303 of 2010, 1304 of 2010 and 1305 of 2010 before this Division and, upon hearing, all the appeals were allowed by judgment and order dated 01.09.2022, which led to the filing of Civil Review Petition no.143 of 2023, Civil Review Petition nos.126-127 of 2023 and Civil Review Petition nos. 235 and 144, both of 2023.
The Appellate Division, being the apex Court of the country, comprising of the then Chief Justice and his four companion Judges, are expected to be well conversant with the laws of the country relating to the functioning of the Ministries in general and the Election Commission in particular. Nevertheless, they chose to allow the appeals preferred by the Cabinet Secretary, who had absolutely no authority to do so. This Division finds all the appeals inclusive of all the Civil Review Petitions are allowed by unanimous decision. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2022, passed by this Division in Civil Appeal Nos.21-24 of 2011, are hereby set aside. The concerned respondents are directed to reinstate the appellants/ petitioners in service forthwith. .....Afroza Khanam =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 250] ....View Full Judgment

Administrative tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters when a person in the service of the Republic is aggrieved by any order or decision in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or by any action taken in relation to him as a person in the service of the Republic. In the present case, the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 is a person in the service of the Republic as per the provision of section 4(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 and as such the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter regarding the terms and conditions of the service of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1. ...Secretary, Posts & Telecom Div. & anr Vs. Shudangshu Shekhar & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 11 ....View Full Judgment

The case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case– The Appellate Tribunal observed that from the amended prayers it appeared that cause of action for filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal arose on 13.08.2003 whereas the petition was filed on 15.07.2002. So the case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case. It further appears that while the case was filed the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was pending, therefore, he had no cause of action to file the case. But the Tribunal failed to consider this factual aspect of the case, when it was not proper for the Tribunal to pass any order directing reinstatement of the petitioner. In view of the above Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the impugned decision which was done legally. This civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. ...Jalal(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 86] ....View Full Judgment

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Articles 117(2), 102(1), 44(1), 133, 136, 27, 28 & 31
Non-Cadre Class-I and II Gazetted Officer (Customs Excise and VAT) Appointment and Service terms and conditions Act of 2000 (XX of 2000)
Section 8
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4
A person in the service of the Republic who intends to invoke fundamental right for challenging the vires of a law will seek his remedy under article 102(1), but in all other cases he will be required to seek remedy under Article 117(2)— Appellate Division has already found that the said provision is not ultra vires of Articles 133 and 136 of the Constitution and this Division is also of the view that no fundamental right as guaranteed in Article 27, 28 and 31 of the Constitution have been infringed but the impugned order of transfer was lawfully and validly passed and in any view of the matter, the writ petition challenging taking away of certain seniority and the gradation list have been done designedly in order to obviate the bar of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 providing that the High Court Division had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding terms and condition of service which obviously include the instant transfer in view of the provision of Article 117(2) of the Constitution.
Appellate Division has no reason to differ with the views expressed therein, rather, in order to uphold the constitutional mandate high, this Division respectfully reiterate that no Court including High Court Division shall entertain any proceeding or make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such tribunal as enshrined in Article 117(2) of the Constitution. The right to move the High Court Division in accordance with Article 102(1) of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III thereof is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 44(1) thereof and the High Court Division itself having been entrusted with the specified jurisdiction under Article 102(1) of the Constitution to exercise such powers thereunder should exercise such power on specified fields without offending other provisions of the Constitution, for the simple reason that a right to judicial review under Article 102(2) is neither a fundamental right nor a guaranteed right i.e., to be precise it is not an all weather remedy nor a remedy for all wrongs, which is available only when there is no other equally efficacious remedy provided by law. The impugned judgment and order dated 15th and 16th April, 2002 making the rule absolute in Writ Petition No.5891 of 2000 are hereby set aside and the rule nisi accordingly stands recalled. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Mohammad Salahuddin Talukder, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 157] ....View Full Judgment

Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985
Rule 11(3)
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4(2)
The reinstatement in the service on withdrawal of suspension order amounts to withdrawal of charge and dropping of the pending enquiry— In the instant case the dates are very material as the Tribunal on 15.9.1998 made the order of reinstatement within three months but the appellant reinstated the respondent on 5.4.1999 and the respondent joined the post on 31.5.1999 but the order of suspension was made on 11.11.1999 and thus the sequence of events apparently show that the authority initially decided not to proceed against the delinquent officer and allowed him to be re-instated and posted him and drew pay and allowances but as a measure of afterthought, after a lapse of about 1 year 2 months of the order of re-instatement decided to take the purported action on 11.11.1999. The conduct of the appellant supports the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent about waiver, acquiescence of the appellant and estoppel from proceeding with further enquiry under rule 11(3) of the Rules, 1985 at the belated stage. The authority having allowed the respondent to act in his service for about six months of joining, the purported action after about more than year of setting aside the order of termination, the impugned action against the delinquent officer dated 11.11.1999 was surely a measure of belated afterthought and the authority will be estopped from initiating an action under rule 11(3) of the Rules, 1985. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= A.K.M. Fazlul Haque, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 389] ....View Full Judgment

Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 4(6), 7(2)(c) r/w
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 135(2)
Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982
Rules 6, 6(7), 11
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980
Sections 5, 6 and 12
Dismissing the appeal for default–– Appellate Division found that the appeal was filed back in the year 2003 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. But after long laps of time when the matter was fixed for hearing on 26.02.2008 none appeared for appellants. So, it is apparent that the appellant had lost his interest to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on an application for restoration of the appeal the same was also disallowed as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not believe the plea of the learned Counsel of the appellant to have lost his personal case diary to be an acceptable extenuating circumstance.
The above discussions it is abundantly clear that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly disallowed the said application for restoration following the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and Rules. .....Ministry of Forest, Bangladesh =VS= Kiran Sankar Sarker, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 447] ....View Full Judgment

It is seen from the provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act that an appeal lies from an order of the Administrative Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Tribunal refused the prayer for ad-interim order restraining the authority from granting promotion to the respondents. So the respondent Nos. 1-11 herein if were aggrieved by the order so passed by the Administrative Tribunal they were required as per provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act to file appeal, if any, they would have thought fit. But instead of doing that they were not well advised to file the writ petition seeking the relief identical to the relief sought in the Administrative Tribunal case with the sole object of having an ad-interim order restraining the authority from taking steps for the promotion of the Assistant Superintendent of Police to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police.
Khalilur Rahman, ASP SB, Dhaka vs Md Kamrul Ahsan 10 BLC (AD) 193.

In the instant case PSC recommended for regularisation of the opposite parties No. 3-86 on 28-1-1998 and thereupon the said opposite parties became the members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Enforcement: Police Cadre) and that being so in law they can only claim seniority in the Cadre Service on and from 28-1-1998 and no other date.
Khalilur Rahman (Md) PPM and others vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 8 BLC (AD) 80.

Aggrieved person and necessary parties
There appears to be no guidance either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including those of Order 1. Except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to. apply to the Tribunal. But still then as a general rule it cannot be disputed that all necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of A.S.Ps. and they are seeking relief against the Government alone it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees and as such it cannot be said that the case is bad for defect of parties for not impleading respondent Nos. 1 — 15. Respondent Nos. 1—15 nevertheless are aggrieved’ person within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act in that the order of the Tribunal was likely to be prejudicial to them in the matter of seniority. Their right of appeal cannot, therefore, be denied. Md. Abdul Mannan and ors Vs. Mr. Hasan Mahmud Khondker and others, 16 BLD (AD) 147

The present petitioners filed the above mentioned Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No.l, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No.l31 of 2005 with an application under section 6(2A) of the Administra­tive Tribunal Act, 1980 praying for con­donation of delay of 2 (two) months and 6 (six) days in filing the appeal. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs. Md. Mizan ur-Rahman (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 846

Appeal must be filed in 3 months.
The aggrieved person may prefer an appeal within 3(three) months from the date of order or decision before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal has no power to extend the period of Limitation.
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Ansarul Huq 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 209

Powers and Procedure of Tribunals
Although the Administrative Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court and the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable for specified purposes to the proceedings before it, yet it is not a Court proper and it does not possess all the powers of a court provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication.
Kamrul Hasan vs. Bangladesh and others, 16 BLD (AD) 35

The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. Kamrul Hasan vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR (AD) 44.

Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12.
Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no ·proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court. Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No. SRO 92-L/82-JIV /IT-3/81 dated 12-3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538.

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 10A r/w
Administrative Appellate Tribunals Rules, 1982
Section 7
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Penal Code, 1860
Section 166
The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal–Appellate Division is of the opinion that the respondents cannot avail themselves of the remedy provided under article 102 of the Constitution for having a direction upon the Administrative Tribunal to file a complaint under section 166 of the Penal Code. The High Court Division has not been entrusted with the power of deciding as to how the decisions and orders of the Administrative Tribunals will be executed. The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal is quite competent to come to a decision about the mode of implementation of its own decisions and orders. In case of failure, the said writ-petitioner-respondent has been given further remedy under section 10A of the Act. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Maleque Miah, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 12] ....View Full Judgment