Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980

 

 

The case was not bad for defect of party.

The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found that in the written statement the petitioners did not raise any objection about defect of party. It is for the first time before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal that the objection as to defect of party was raised. The objection having been raised at the appellate stage an application was filed by the respondent for proper description of the party by impleading ‘Bangladesh Krishi Bank’ as a party. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Advocate Is too technical and for which the respondent should not suffer. Apart from this technical objection, we also find that both the tribunals below found that due opportunity was not accorded to the respondent to plead his case before the Board of Inquiry for which the respondent was materially prejudiced in his defence. In that view of the matter, there is nothing for our interference with the impugned judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. [Para-51]

Bangladesh Krishi Bank & Ors Vs. Mohammed Hossain Bhuiyan 7BLT (AD)-30

 

Section-4 Read with Rule-17 of The Government Servant’s (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985

Point of Limitation — the Limitation for the Purpose of Section 4 of the Act would run from the date of the rejection of the first appeal. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, right. (Para-4)

Md. Abdur Rahiin Vs. MLIIIStrLJ of Food 4BLT (AD)-255

Section-4(2)

Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal — respondent was appointed as an officer of the appellant Bank on 4-1-78 and he was given invalid retirement on his own seeking on 15.10.89. Thereafter on 15.4.90 he submitted an application for reemployment in the Bank. The authority, rejected his application for re-employment by order dated 16.3.92—Held : It is clear that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is attracted when the person is in the service of the Republic of any statutory public authority but in the present case the former service of the respondent had ceased to exist and the question of re-employment is an issue wherein the respondent has no legal claim in the service of the appellant Bank. It is purely a matter of discretion for the appellant to re-employ the respondent and if, for any reason the appellant does not feel inclined to re-employ the respondent, that matter cannot be brought within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal not being covered by the Provision of Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980. [Para-8]

Janata Bank Vs. Md. Shah Alam Sarker 5 BLT (AD)-211

Section-4(2) Read with Article- 146 of Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972

Condonation—Principle

In the present case the Government of Bangladesh was there in the application of the appellant but it was not properly described, that is to say, the word ‘secretary should have followed the words “Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh” and not preceded it—it will be, however, a matter for consideration in each case whether the irregularity of describing a necessary party properly the same should prove fatal or whether it can be condoned. In the present case, condonation principle should apply. [Paras-20 & 21]

Md. Ali Emdad Vs. Labour Director & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-90

Section-6(3)

To reinstate the respondent in service — Sub-Section 3 of Section 6 of the Act empowers the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to consider set aside, vary or modify’ any order or decision of an Administrative Tribunal on an appeal. (Para-3)

S.P. Naogaon & Ors. Vs. Sree Delip Kr. Barman 4BLT (AD)-230.

Section-7 (3B)

Absence of the Chairman or any other member is conceived in a situation where in the midst of a hearing by all the three members one departs temporarily for any reason so that he remains a party to the deliberations and, therefore, competent to sign the judgment. [Para-221]

Miss Shaheda Khatun Vs. Administrative Appellate Tribunal & Ors 6BLT (AD)-259.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980

 

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980

 

Section-4(2)

The departmental appeal
was rejected on 5.6.88 by the higher administrative authority and the case was
filed before the Administrative Tribunal on 24.5.85. Hence it is barred by
limitation as the provision of Section 4(2) contemplates filing of the case
within six months from the disposal of the appeal by the higher administrative
authority. [Para-4]

A. K. M. Any ad Hossain
Vs. Superintending Engineer & Ors. 8BLT (AD)-43

 

Section-4(2)

In the instant case the
jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal in entertaining the case without
performing any appeal before a higher administrative authority was not in fact
raised before the Administrative Tribunal and Administrative Appellate
Tribunal. Respondent No. 1’s representation for getting ante-dated seniority
was being considered by the relevant authorities namely, the National Board of
Revenue, the ministry of Establishment and Public Service Commission from
2.1.90. Ultimately National Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated
29.7.91 refusing to grant ante-dated seniority to the petitioner in spite of
the recommendations of the Ministry of Establishment and the Public Service Commission.
This impugned order is in fact the order of a higher administrative authority
as because the officers of the taxation department are under the administrative
control of the National Board of Revenue and the National Board of Revenue is
in fact the final higher administrative authority for the purpose of granting
ante-dated seniority to respondent No. 1. Hence the question of filing any
appeal to higher administrative authority for the purpose of granting
ante-dated seniority to respondent No. 1 does not arise. The representation of
respondent No I having been turned down by the National Board of Revenue, which
is the higher administrative authority in the case of respondent, the question
of preferring any further appeal does not arise in the facts of this case.

Govt, of Bangladesh
& Anr. Vs. Md.. Nurul Haque Miah &Ors. 9BLT(AD)-36

 

Section-4(2) read with Limitation Act, 1908

Section-14

Section-14 of the
Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceeding before the tribunal.

Ahal Bashar Vs.
Investment Corp. of Bangladesh & Ors. 9 BLT(AD)-92.