GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES,1984
Rules — 7(11) and 26(2)
Disposal
of departmental proceeding within specified time —Whether an employee of
Trading Corporation of Bangladesh departmentally proceeded against under the
Rules of 1976 stand automatically discharged on the expiry of the time limit to
take decision against them by the authority—All the charges in all the writ
petitions were communicated to the petitioners long before the Rules of 1984
came into force. The charges were commutated under the Rules of 1984 in Writ
petition No.33 of 1986 but the petitioner was suspended on 9-11-81—A legal
fiction can be created only by statute and it is not open to court to create a
legal fiction by interpreting a Rule—If the pending proceedings were to be
covered by Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 7 then clear words ought to have been employed
to bring their cases within the ambit of the said- sub- rule either in the said
sub—rule itself or in subrule(2) of Rule 26— Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 7 is only
prospective in operation—The period of limitation will be counted only from the
date when the charges are communicated under Rules or within 150 working days
from the date the employee is placed under suspension, whichever ix
earlier,-The petitioners were cither served with charge sheets or suspended
long h Fore the expiry of 120 working days or 150 w rking days from the date of
cominginto force of the Rules of 1984—The said provision is simply inapplicable
in these cases.
M.A.
Hai and others Vs. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh, 8BLD(HCD)228
GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1985
Rules —7(9) and 27
Disposal of departmental proceeding within
specified time—Automatic discharge of the employees on the expiry of the
time limit to take decision by the authority— Whether employees of Trading
Corporation of Bangladesh departmentally proceeded against under Government
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1976 stand automatically discharged on
the expiry of the time limit to take decision against them by the
authority—These proceedings were drawn under the Rules of 1976 and were pending
when the Rules of 1984 the qualifying clause “as far as may be” was inserted
obviously in the previous Rules there was no such provision, but no such
qualifying clause was necessary in the similar provisions of the Rule of 1985
as the same time limit was there in the provisions of the Rules of 1984—It is
impossible to apply the provision of time limit under the Rules of 1985 in a
proceeding which was drawn under the Rules of 1976-” Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 Rr. 7(9) & 27
M.A.
Hai and others – Vs- Trading Corporation of Bangladesh. 8BLD (AD) 84
Rule — 10(8)
Power of Enquiry officer—Under Rule
10(8) an Enquiry officer shall give only his finding whether the accused is
guilty or not guilty and shall not make any recommendation as to punishment or
otherwise. Further. an enquiry shall be completed within the specified period.
Bashir
Ahmed -Vs- Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation and others. 12BLD (AD) 125
Rule—11(3)
Further enquiry—It is not required that
a further inquiry is to be made after reinstating the Government servant whose
removal order has been set aside by a Court of law or Administrative Tribunal.
Once the authority decided to hold a further inquiry, the Government servant
“shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the authority from the
date of original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall
continue to remain under suspension until further order”. The condition of
further inquiry. however, is that the decision to do so shall have to be taken
within 30 days from the date of decision of the Court or Administrative
Tribunal.
Muhammad
Muslim Au -Vs- The Secretary, Ministry of Establishment and others. 12BLD(AD)193
GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULE, 1976
Delinquent Government servant—Departmental
proceeding—Duty of Government—Corrective measures to be taken according to
law—Law must prevail.
“Even
in the case of an exasperating delinquency of a Government servant correcting
measures are to be taken coolly in accordance with law. Between the
plaintiff—respondent’s unauthorised absence and the defendant appellant’s
unauthorised departmental proceeding the law must prevail.
The Executive Engineer, Public Health
Engineering Vs. Mohammad Akkel Au and others, 12BLD (AD) 212
Ref:
36 DLR (AD) 26 (36) 22 DLR (SC) 371—Cited.