(Civil)
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Md Imman Ali J
Md Anwarul Haque J
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh……..
………..Petitioner
vs
Abdul Halim……….
…….. Respondent
Judgment May 5th, 2013.
Government Servants’ (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 11(3)
Second Show Cause Notice – The order of punishment cannot be said to be legal as, admittedly, no second show cause notice as per requirement of law was served upon the delinquent employee before imposition of punishment. …… (6)
Rajik-ul Jalil, Deputy Attorney-General instructed by Md Ibrahim Khalil, Advocate-on-Record – For the Petitioner.
Ruhul Quddus, Advocate instructed by Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record – For the Respondent.
Judgment
Nazmun Ara Sultana J: The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Food and another have filed this Civil Petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-5-2009 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 56 of 2003 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 5-11-2002 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No. I, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 235 of 1997 allowing the case of the petitioner-respondent.
2. The petitioner-respondent herein filed the above mentioned Administrative Tribunal Case No. 235 of 1997 challenging the order of punishment imposed on him in a departmental proceeding of recovery of Taka 5,62,118.97 from him, stoppage of his one annual increment for 2 years and treating the period of his suspension from 15 11-1991 to 15-9-1992 as leave without pay.
3. The petitioner’s case, in short, was that a departmental proceeding was started against him on the charge of corruption and in that departmental proceeding, by the order dated 15-9-1992, he was dismissed from service. Against that dismissal order he filed the departmental appeal which was rejected on 6-3-1993. He then filed AT Case No. 143 of 1993 against the said order of dismissal which was allowed on contest. Thereafter, he joined service on 26-4-1995. Again on 5-6-1995 the authority started a further enquiry against him under Rule 11(3) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the said Enquiry Officer, without holding enquiry, submitted a perverse report against the petitioner. The authority then without supplying the enquiry report and without issuing any second show cause notice passed the impugned order of punishment. The petitioner filed departmental appeal against the said order which was rejected.
4. The opposite parties contested the case by filing written statement denying the material allegations of the petitioner and stating that the charge of corruption had been proved against the petitioner in further enquiry and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed against the petitioner on observing all requirements of law and there was no illegality or irregularity in the departmental proceeding. The Administrative Tribunal, on hearing both the parties and considering the materials brought before it allowed the case of the petitioner holding to the effect that the departmental proceeding started against the petitioner and the punishment imposed on him in that departmental proceeding were vitiated by non-supply of the enquiry ‘report to the petitioner and also for non-service of any second show cause notice as per requirement of law. Against that judgment and order of the administrative tribunal Government filed the above mentioned Administrative Tribunal Appeal No. 56 of 2003 and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, on hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal holding the same view that 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.
5. Mr Rajik-ul Jalil, the learned Deputy
Attorney-General has appeared for’ the leave petitioners while Mr Ruhul Quddus, the learned advocate has appeared for the respondent.
6. Mr Rajik-ul Jalil though made some
submissions before us trying to impeach the impugned judgments of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal but ultimately conceded the fact that the impugned order of punishment cannot be said to be legal as, admittedly, no second show cause notice as per requirement of law was served upon the delinquent employee-respondent before imposition of this punishment.
In the circumstance this leave petition is dismissed.
