Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation Service Rules, 1980

Rule 41 (2)–

If an officer gives a notice in whatever form purporting to terminate his service, the Corporation on its part may issue an order of release and there will be nothing wrong in it. In the case of the respondent his letter seeking permission to retire was practically a notice for termination of his service to which the appellants agreed by issuing the impugned letter releasing him from service. In any view it cannot be said the order was misconceived or illegal.

Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation vs Mofizur Rahman 46 DLR (AD) 46.

Rule 41 (2)(i)(iv)-

Termination of service of employees of a statutory body-No reason was required to be assigned for their termination-If the termination is found to be within the four corners of the law the Court cannot nullify it on the ground that it is harsh. There is no requirement in the Rules that termination would be void when no reason for it was assigned. The principle of natural justice is also not applicable in the case as this principle has been excluded in the Rule itself. The appointing authority has got power to reinstate a terminated employee, in exclusion of some others, on the merit of individual case.

Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation vs Shahid Hossain Bhuiyan and others 43 DLR (AD) 154.

Rule 47-

An officer or employee of a statutory corporation is not entitled to a second show cause notice, unless the Rules specifically so provide. The said Rules do not provide for any second show cause notice. The respondent was given a second show cause notice ex gratia and he had no entitlement to it. The Corporation could have passed the order of punishment after the enquiry was over without serving any second show cause notice.

Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation vs AKM Abul Kalam 47 DLR (AD) 67.

Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation Service Rules, 1980

 

Bangladesh
Parjatan Corporation Service Rules, 1980

 

Rule—57(1)(2)

Enquiry
Procedure

An
officer or employee of the Parjatan Corporation like other statutory
corporations is not entitled to a second show cause notice since the Rules do
not specifically so provide. The respondent was given a second show cause
notice ex-gratia. The Corporation could have passed the order of punishment
after the enquiry was over without serving any second show cause notice. Since
the principle of natural justice was duly followed in the case in conducting
the enquiry, no grievance could be made on this court. But since the enquiry
was not conducted in accordance with the Rules the ultimate order of the High
Court Division is upheld.

Bangladesh
Parjatan Corporation, Dhaka Vs. A.K.M. Abul Kalam, 15 BLD (AD) 127.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.