Appellate Division Cases
(Civil)
PARTIES
General Manager Rangpur Palli Bidyul Samity-1 ……………Petitioner.
-Vs-
Md. Ali Reza…………Respondent
JUSTICES
Md. Ruhul Amin J
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J.
Judgment Dated: 29th August 2006
Inquiry against the Respondent was held in his absence and he was not notified regarding time and place of inquiry and the witnesses also were examined in his absence and as such he could not cross-examine them. As a result he was denied the right of self-defence and the principle of natural justice also has been violated. The inquiry committee did not assign any reason for conducting the inquiry without informing the Respondent regarding the time and place of enquiry and in his absence. The High Court Division further found that the inquiry held against the Respondent was perfunctory and therefore relying on such perfunctory inquiry report the dismissal of the Respondent from service was illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the same was not binding upon him……………………. (5)
Zicuil Hasan, Advocate instructed by Mahmuda Begum, Advocate-on-Record.
………………………For the Petitioner
Respondent …………………………..Not represented.
Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No.919 of 2005
(From the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.5360 of 2000.)
JUDGMENT
M.M. Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.5360 of 2000 making the Rule absolute.
2. Short facts arc that the plaintiff instituted Other Suit No.48 of 1998 in the Court of the Senior Assistant Judge, Mithapukur. Rangpur for declaration that the memo dated 10.02.1998 dismissing the plaintiff from the post of Line Technician, Rangpur Pally Bidyut Samity-1. Sathibari, Rangpur and the decision taken in 197th Board meeting of the said Samity on 29.03.1998 disallowing the appeal of the petitioner are void, illegal, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiff and to reinstate him in his job with back wages and other benefits. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that he was appointed as an Assistant Lineman in Ran«pur Pally Bidyut Samily1, Shathibari. Rangpur on 21.04.1984.
Since then he had been working there with honesty, integrity, and sincerity and during the tenure of his service he was promoted to the post of Line Technician and had been discharging his official duty. For performing some right of way work he submitted a bill in the office of the Pally Bidyut Samity 1, for an amount of Tk.3.000/- which he received from the office as an advance for the said work but the Assistant General Manager in his note sheet stated that the bill submitted by the plaintiff was inconsistent with the amount
he received as an advance. The plaintiff replied stating that the report of the Assistant General Manager was baseless and false. Thereafter, an Inquiry Committee was constituted for holding inquiry as to the allegations made against him. The committee did not inform him the date and time of inquiry and to remain present before the inquiry committee and that the inquiry committee did not examine any witness in his presence.
Accordingly, the plaintiff could not crossexamine the witnesses deposed before the Inquiry Committee and hence he was denied the right of self-defence and there has been violation of the principle of natural justice and that on the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee, the plaintiff was dismissed from the service. Hence the suit.
3. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations.made in the plaint and further stated that the plaintiff was serving as Technician under Rangpur Pally Bidyut Samity-1. He was assigned to perform
right of way work at Shukurerhat area for which he received Tk.3,000/- as an advance on 23.07.1997, but without performing the work, he submitted a false bill misappropriating the said amount for which he was served with a show cause notice to which he replied denying the allegations made against him and the reply was not found satisfactory. An Inquiry Committee was formed which found the plaintiff guilty and accordingly he was dismissed from service.
4. The trial court decreed the suit. On an appeal being Title Appeal No.46 of 1999 the appellate court allowed the appeal. The plaintiff moved the High Court Division in rcvisional jurisdiction and the Rule was made absolute as noticed earlier.
5. We have heard Mr. Ziaul Hasan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
6. The High Court Division found that the inquiry against the Respondent was held
in his absence and he was not notified regarding time and place of inquiry and the witnesses also were examined in his absence and as such he could not crossexamine them. As a result he was denied the right of self-defence and the principle of natural justice also has been violated. The inquiry committee did not assign any reason for conducting the inquiry without informing the Respondent regarding the time and place of enquiry and in his absence. The High Court Division further found that the inquiry held against the Respondent was perfunctory and therefore relying on such perfunctory inquiry report the dismissal of the Respondent from service was illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the same was not binding upon him.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the suit for mere declaration was not maintainable without having any prayer for consequential relief. In this connection the High Court Division referred to a decision reported in 50 D.L.R.411 wherein it was held that the implementation of such a decree passed by a competent court is the constitutional obligation of the present petitioner which is a statutory body and therefore we do not find any substance in the submission of learned Advocate.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
9. The leave petition is dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),600