Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation
Employees Service Regulations, 1989
Regulation-42, Clause-8 read with General Clauses Act, 1897,
Clause (8) of regulation
42 is a matter of simple procedure. The forum and also time for institution of
proceeding or concluding the same are only questions of procedural law for they
relate merely to the modes in which the court or the tribunal fulfils their
function. It does not invest an incumbent with any vested right. It is well
settled that any procedural law is retrospective in its operation. Therefore, a
subsequent omission b\ way of amendment in a procedure cannot be of any
consequence in respect of the proceeding against the appellant. Secondly,
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act contemplates repeal of an Act and not of a
regulation under the rule making power. Admittedly, in the instant case,
whatever alteration was made it was made in respect of a regulation.
Chowdhury Nasimul Baqui
Vs. Bangladesh Steel & Eng. Cor. & Ors. 9 BLT(AD)-39.
BSR Part-1 Note-4 of Rule-72
It appears from the
judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal that the respondent was
honorably acquitted b\ the review forum after finding that the charges were
baseless and groundless and recommended for his reinstatement in the service.
The review forum further observed that the respondent has been honorably
acquitted from the charges and as such he is entitled to pay and allowances for
the period of absence from his service as per Note-4 of Rule-72 of BSR Part-1.
A reference to Note-4 of Rule-72 shows that “the period of absence of
Government servant on reinstatement in service after wrongful retirement shall
be treated as a period spent on duty and he will be entitled to pay and
allowances admissible under clause (a) of this rule” Clause (a) or Rule 72
speaks that in case of honorably acquittal the incumbent is entitled to full
pay to which he would have been entitled if he had not been dismissed or
removed or suspended. In that view of the matter the Administrative Appellate
Tribunal rightly held that the respondent is entitled to the arrear pay and
Govt. of Bangladesh vs.
A. M. Nurunnabi 9 BLT (AD)-224.