(From previous issue) :
The power to determine the service of an employee below the rank of Assistant Director who are classified as “other employees” shall be exercised by the General Manager of an office or Branch with the approval of the Governor of the Bank. In the instant case this Division rightly found that the General Manager made a proposal to the Governor of the Bangladesh Bank for the termination of the services of the petitioners pursuant to Regulation 13 (ii) of the Regulations, 2003. Accordingly, the General Manager terminated the services of the petitioners with the approval of the Governor. Regulation 13 (ii) does not provide for dismissal of the employee and it does not contain any stigma or, punishment against the petitioners.
Therefore, this Division in the leave petitions having considered all aspects of the matter disposed of them with observation holding that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed the appeals after setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal. We are of the view that the services of the petitioners were rightly terminated by invoking the Regulation 13(ii) of the Bangladesh Bank Staff Regulations, 2003.
14. While speaking about the scope of review the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan vs Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan, reported in PLD 1962 SC 335 = 13 DLR (SC) 105 observed as under:
“To permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court the jurisdiction to hear appeals against its own judgments or perhaps a jurisdiction to one Bench of the Court to hear appeals against other Benches; and that surely is not the scope of review jurisdiction. No mistake in a considered conclusion, whatever the extent of that mistake, can be a ground for the exercise of review jurisdiction.”
15. In the case of Secretary Ministry of Finance vs Md Masdar Hossain reported in 21 BLD (AD) 126 at page 131 para 12 = 7 BLC (AD) 92 this Division reiterated the principle as under:
“a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. A review lies where an error apparent on the face of the record exists. It is not a re-hearing of the main appeal. Review is not intended to empower the Court to correct a mistaken view of law, if any, taken in the main judgment. It is only a clerical mistake or mistake apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected by the leave but it does not include the correction of any erroneous view of law taken by the Court.”
16. I n the case of Tarique Rahman vs Bangladesh reported in 63 DLR (AD) 162 at page 172 para 23 in which two of us was party, whi Ie expounding the grounds of review we observed as under: “In order to review a judgment there must be an error apparent on the face of the record and that this error is so apparent and manifest and clear that no court of law would permit such an error to remain on the record.
We arc therefore convinced to reach to the conclusion that the error must not only be apparent it must also have a material bearing on the face of the case”. (n disposing of the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal we already considered the same grounds which have been advanced before us in these civil review petitions.
17. In these civil review petitions we do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr Rafique-ul-Huq, the learned Advocate for the petitioners rather we find substance in the submissions of Mr Shamim Khaled Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents to the effect that the grounds taken in the review petitions are in real terms the same grounds which were already considered and repelled in the judgment and order passed by this Division in the above leave petitions.
This Division consistently held that review by no means is are-hearing of the appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that in all these civil review petitions the grounds urged by the petitioners are nothing but the grounds taken into consideration and repelled in the leave Petitions. It is therefore not permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same contentions as were advanced at the time of hearing of the leave petitions.
18. From the above discussions and findings we are of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the above leave petitions. There is no legal ground in these civil review petitions for review of the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the civil petitions for leave to appeal.
Accordingly, all these civil review petitions are dismissed.
(Concluded)
The power to determine the service of an employee below the rank of Assistant Director who are classified as “other employees” shall be exercised by the General Manager of an office or Branch with the approval of the Governor of the Bank. In the instant case this Division rightly found that the General Manager made a proposal to the Governor of the Bangladesh Bank for the termination of the services of the petitioners pursuant to Regulation 13 (ii) of the Regulations, 2003. Accordingly, the General Manager terminated the services of the petitioners with the approval of the Governor. Regulation 13 (ii) does not provide for dismissal of the employee and it does not contain any stigma or, punishment against the petitioners.
Therefore, this Division in the leave petitions having considered all aspects of the matter disposed of them with observation holding that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed the appeals after setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal. We are of the view that the services of the petitioners were rightly terminated by invoking the Regulation 13(ii) of the Bangladesh Bank Staff Regulations, 2003.
14. While speaking about the scope of review the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan vs Controller of Estate Duty, Government of Pakistan, reported in PLD 1962 SC 335 = 13 DLR (SC) 105 observed as under:
“To permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court the jurisdiction to hear appeals against its own judgments or perhaps a jurisdiction to one Bench of the Court to hear appeals against other Benches; and that surely is not the scope of review jurisdiction. No mistake in a considered conclusion, whatever the extent of that mistake, can be a ground for the exercise of review jurisdiction.”
15. In the case of Secretary Ministry of Finance vs Md Masdar Hossain reported in 21 BLD (AD) 126 at page 131 para 12 = 7 BLC (AD) 92 this Division reiterated the principle as under:
“a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. A review lies where an error apparent on the face of the record exists. It is not a re-hearing of the main appeal. Review is not intended to empower the Court to correct a mistaken view of law, if any, taken in the main judgment. It is only a clerical mistake or mistake apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected by the leave but it does not include the correction of any erroneous view of law taken by the Court.”
16. I n the case of Tarique Rahman vs Bangladesh reported in 63 DLR (AD) 162 at page 172 para 23 in which two of us was party, whi Ie expounding the grounds of review we observed as under: “In order to review a judgment there must be an error apparent on the face of the record and that this error is so apparent and manifest and clear that no court of law would permit such an error to remain on the record.
We arc therefore convinced to reach to the conclusion that the error must not only be apparent it must also have a material bearing on the face of the case”. (n disposing of the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal we already considered the same grounds which have been advanced before us in these civil review petitions.
17. In these civil review petitions we do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr Rafique-ul-Huq, the learned Advocate for the petitioners rather we find substance in the submissions of Mr Shamim Khaled Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents to the effect that the grounds taken in the review petitions are in real terms the same grounds which were already considered and repelled in the judgment and order passed by this Division in the above leave petitions.
This Division consistently held that review by no means is are-hearing of the appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that in all these civil review petitions the grounds urged by the petitioners are nothing but the grounds taken into consideration and repelled in the leave Petitions. It is therefore not permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same contentions as were advanced at the time of hearing of the leave petitions.
18. From the above discussions and findings we are of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the above leave petitions. There is no legal ground in these civil review petitions for review of the impugned judgment and order passed by this Division in the civil petitions for leave to appeal.
Accordingly, all these civil review petitions are dismissed.
(Concluded)
