Second show cause notice— Sub-rule (1) of rule 143 it appears that an employee shall be called upon to submit explanation in writing to the authority within seven days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged offence. But when the explanation of the employee is not found satisfactory than the sub-rule (2) intervenes whereupon the authority shall frame a charge and call upon him to submit a written defence within such period as may be specified in this behalf being not less than seven days and more than fourteen days, stating whether he desires to be heard in person. Sub-rule (1) specifically provides that the explanation is to be submitted to the authority in writing within 7 days but sub-rule (2) provides that the authority shall frame a charge and call upon him to submit a written defence but no authority or anybody has been mentioned therein to whom the written defence has to be submitted. On perusal of sub-rule (3) it appears that the authority competent to impose the penalty shall appoint an officer senior in rank to the accused to conduct and enquire who shall submit a report after giving the employee a personal hearing if desired by him. On perusal of sub-rule (2) the logical conclusion that could be drawn is that the written defence has to be submitted to the enquiry officer stating whether he deserves to be heard in person. Sub-rule (2) provides that the enquiry officer appointed by the competent authority shall conduct an enquiry into the charges giving the employee a personal hearing, if desired by him. In view of the above, the High Court Division erred in law in holding that the respondent is entitled to get another show cause notice by the authority to submit written defence to them as per sub-rule (2) of rule 143 and that not having been given there was gross violation of the said rule. .....Power Development Board, Dhaka =VS= Md. Fazlul Haque, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 207] ....View Full Judgment