A.F.M. Solaiman Chowdhury (Petitioner)
Md. Mohibbullah & others (Respondents)
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
MM Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam]
Md. Abdul Matin J
October 30, 2007.
Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Senior Advocate instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
Abdur Rab Chowdhury, Senior Advocate instructed by Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record- For Respondent No. 1.
Not represented- Respondent Nos. 2-5.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 277 of 2007.
(From the judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4309 of 2002.)
MMRuhul Amin J. – This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4309 of 2002 making the Rule absolute.
2. Short facts are that the Governing Body of Alhaj Mokbul Hossain College appointed the writ petitioner as the Principal of the said college with effect from 06.06.1999 and on completion of two years of satisfactory service, he was confirmed as Principal of the College on 15.11.2001. Thereafter with the change of the Government, after the Parliamentary election on 1st October, 2001, some disgruntled elements started a campaign against the writ petitioner and also against the decisions of the Governing Body, headed by the ‘former member of parliament and an application was made to the then Minister for Education on 27.12.2001 by one Kazi Momtaz Shirin who was removed earlier from the college by a resolution of the Governing Body. A notification dated 20.05.2002 was sent from the National University informing the College authority that an Inspection Team comprising three persons would visit the college on 29.05.2002 to ascertain the academic, administrative and over all conditions of the College. When the Inspection Team came to the College, a group of teachers made a complaint against the writ petitioner to the Pro-Vice Chancellor, who was a member of the Team and subsequently the Inspector of College of the National University by a memo dated 17.07.2002 issued a direction to the Governing Body of the College to place the petitioner under suspension under Regulation No.16 and reinstate one Mostafa Alam Masum and Ms. Shahina Begum in service by withdrawing their previous termination orders and further direction was given to allow Kutubul Hasan Mollah to resume his duties and to reinstate Kazi Momtaz Shirin in the service of the college. Accordingly, the Governing Body of the college in a meeting held on 06.08.2002 decided to place the petitioner under suspension without issuing any show cause notice upon him and he was placed under suspension.
3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abdur Rob Chowdhury, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
4. The High Court Division held that under Regulation 16(Ka) of ???????? ???? ????????? ?????? ???????? Regulation, 1994 which provides that on an allegation of professional misconduct and moral turpitude, the Governing Body would appoint a 5 member inquiry committee to enquire into the matter, in which Committee, one of the members must be a teacher of the same college in which the person against whom the allegation has been brought was serving and another member must be from the University but from the impugned order (Annexure-J to the writ petition) it appears that on the recommendation of a three member committee the writ-petitioner was placed under suspension. The High Court Division further held that the writ petitioner was placed on suspension on recommendation of a three member committee which is in violation of regulation 16(Ka). It was further held that Regulation 16(Ka) clearly provides that only the Governing Body has the authority and jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against any teacher on an allegation of professional misconduct or moral turpitude and the matter can be inquired into by a 5 member inquiry committee nominated by the Governing Body. Since in the instant case the matter was enquired by a three member inquiry committee and on the recommendation made by the said committee, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension, the suspension of the writ petitioner was arbitrary and without lawful authority.
5. 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.
The petition is dismissed with observation.
Source: 14 MLR (AD) (2009) 164