Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others …………………….Petitioners

-Vs-

Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah………………. Respondent

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin J

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J

Judgment Dated: 12th February 2006

The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985

The Administrative Tribunal by its aforesaid order set aside the order dismissing the departmental appeal of the Respondent No.l and thereupon restored the previous pay scale of the Respondent and That also passed order for the payment of pension, gratuity and other benefits…………………….. (2)

The Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at the finding that the punishment that was awarded to the Respondent was not appropriate one and thereupon made the order as stated hereinbefore …………………………….(3)

Moshfiqur Rahman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by B. Hossain,

Advocate-on-record ……………….For the Petitioners

Respondent…………………… Not represented.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 421 of 2004

(From the Judgment and Order dated January 13, 2004 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 53 of 2000)

JUDGMENT

Md. Ruhul Amin J : Delay is condoned.

2. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated January 13, 2004 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 53 of 2000 dismissing the same. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated January 20, 2000 of the Administrative Tribunal, Bogra in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 19 of 1999 allowing the same in part and consequent thereupon modifying the punishment imposed on the Respondent herein to censure. The Administrative Tribunal by its aforesaid order set aside the order dismissing the departmental appeal of the Respondent No. 1 and thereupon restored the previous pay scale of the Respondent and That also passed order for the payment of pension, gratuity and other benefits.

3. The Respondent joined in the service in 1961 as Constable and was promoted as S.I. on December 1, 1971 and thereafter promoted as Inspector on May 1, 1986, that on October 30, 1996 a departmental proceeding under the provision of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 was initiated against the Respondent. In due course the Respondent submitted his explanation and then an enquiry was held and a report was submitted on November 11, 1997 holding the Respondent guilty. Thereupon second show cause notice was issued to the Respondent and to that he replied, that the

authority by the order dated June 22, 1998 upon down grading time scale one step for two years demoted the Respondent. As against the order of punishment the Respondent filed appeal and the same was dismissed. Thereupon the Respondent filed the case before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at the finding that the punishment that was awarded to the Respondent was not appropriate one and thereupon

made the order as stated hereinbefore.

4. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal as against the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record affirmed the order of the Administrative

Tribunal.

5. The learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal were in error in setting aside the punishment imposed on the Respondent upon taking extraneous matter into consideration. On perusal of the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal we are of the view that on consideration of the facts and Appellate Division Case circumstances of the case in its entirety (Civil)

the order passed by the said Tribunal appears to us was appropriate one and thus in affirming the said order of the Administrative Tribunal, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error.

6. In the background of the discussion Commissioner and made hereinabove we find no substance in others, Satkhira the petition. Petitioners.

7. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),422

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.