Bangladesh Vs. Md. Waziullah

Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others (Petitioners)

Vs.

Md. Waziullah (Respondent)

 

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

JUSTICES

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Md. Hasaan Ameen J

Judgment : February 6, 2008.

Lawyers Involved:

Hasan Faez Siddique, Additional Attorney General, instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioners

A. F. Mushfiqur Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Toufiqe Hossan, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1037 of 2007

(From the judgment and order dated the 14th day of May, 2007 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No.33 of 2007).

Judgment

                  Mohammad Fazlul Karim J. – This petition for Leave to Appeal at the instance of the petitioner is directed against the order dated 14.05.2007 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 33 of 2007 in rejecting the Memorandum of Appeal as barred by limitation.

2. The short facts of the case is that the respondent, Md. Wazilullah was born on 01.01.1954 and joined in the Police Service on 15.02.1973 as a constable. Thereafter, in recognition of his unblemished service record he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 10.05.1979 and as ASI on 29.02.1984. He successfully completed DTS course in 1988, Renewal Course in 1989, TTS Course in 1996, Prosecution Course in 1998 and Immigration Training in 2003. He had unblemished service record. During his service life he was given 44 rewards. While he was working as an ASI of Special Branch, Dhaka received the impugned malafide and illegal order dated 07.10.2003 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Acting) in purported exercise of power under Section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 on 11.10.2003. The impugned order is ex-facie illegal and void, because the power under Section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 could only be passed in a clear case of ‘public interest’ by the Government. Only the Government is competent to retire a Public Servant under Section 9(2) but the impugned order was passed by the Inspector General of Police (Acting) which is without jurisdiction and as such it is illegal and void ab initio.

3. The said petitioner also mentioned that he was born on 01.01.1954 and he would reach the normal age of superannuation on 01.01.2011. The impugned order has been passed 8 years earlier to his normal retirement. He mentioned a list of 10 officers who have completed 25 years of service and having much inferior record of service are being kept in service; that after receipt of the impugned order the said petitioner made an appeal on 18.10.2003 for reinstatement in service. But did not get any response and thus compelled to seek relief before the Tribunal.

4. Mr. Hasan Faez Siddique, learned Additional Attorney General, appearing for the   petitioners submits that the petitioner got  the certified copy on 18.02.2007 but upon due to wrong calculation the petitioner filed this appeal long 8 months after receiving the certified copy of the judgment and order on 18.02.2007.Upon such   miscalculation and non application of judicial mind the highest tribunal in the  Administrative Sector committed error of law in rejecting the Memorandum of Appeal as barred by limitation which is liable to be set aside; that the appellate tribunal ought to have considered the merit of the case that the respondent has got no right to challenge the order dated 07.10.2003 as Section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act 1974 give the Government the option to retire a public servant any time after he has completed 25 years of service without assigning  any  reason  and  for public interest. Thus, the appellate tribunal committed error of law in not considering the cause of delay as sufficient.

5. It appears from the record that the judgment and order was passed on 19.04.2006 and the petitioner got the certified copy on 18.02.2007. The appellate tribunal found that the petitioner filed the appeal long 8 months after receiving the certified copy of the judgment and order. That the appellate tribunal is debarred from entertaining an appeal as no appeal can be entertained after 6 months of the impugned order under Section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 and no application for condonation of delay is applicable.

6. In view of the above, we find no substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Ed.

Source : 13 MLR (AD) 2008, 161

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.