Servants (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1976
is well-settled that on the self-same allegation a departmental proceeding
against an employee is competent besides a proceeding in a Court of law.
Although in the present case the departmental proceeding was started on the
basis of the conviction of the respondent in the Summary Martial Law Court but
it was an independent enquiry in which the respondent had examined several
witnesses in his defence and no fault was found by either of the tribunals with
the enquiry procedure. The order of compulsory retirement was passed following
an independent enquiry and the said order has been affirmed in appeal filed
under the Rules. Under such circumstances, irrespective of the question as to
whether conviction on a criminal charge in a Martial Law Court is covered by
Rule 8 of the Rules or not, the order of punishment cannot be interfered with
in the absence of any fault found with the departmental proceeding.
of Bangladesh Vs Md. Abdul Karim, 16 BLD (AD) 99.
Ref: Monoranjan Mukharjee Vs. Election Commissioner,
10 BLD 17 : 41 DLR 484; State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, A.I.R 1966 (SC)
1313; Ram Bilas Paswan Vs. Union of India (Cal) (199 1)16, Administrative Tribunal
requires that on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer or the Board of
Enquiry, the authority shall consider the report and record its findings on the
Enquiry Officer’s findings are not binding on the punishing authority. The
authority has the duty, obligation and jurisdiction to give independent
findings based not only on the enquiry report and papers submitted by the
Enquiry Officer but also on other departmental reports and papers available to
it. If the enquiry report makes finding in favour of the delinquent employee
and the punishing authority disagrees with the said findings and holds that
charges framed against I delinquent employee have been proved, the punishing
authority is required to give some reasons for disagreeing with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. Unless the reasonings are perverse and shocking to human
conscience, based on pure surmises and conjectures, there is no scope for the
High Court Division to reject the reasonings.
Corporation of Bangladesh, represented by its Chairman Vs Kazi Abdul Hye, 17 BLD
Md. Bashirullah Vs. Bangladeshi, 1 BLD (1981) (AD) 198; Union of India and
others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588—Cited.
Proceedings—Second proceeding on the same cause of action is not barred
Appellate Tribunal after setting aside the order of dismissal from service on grounds
of illegalities and irregularities in the enquiry proceedings directed a fresh
departmental proceeding against the delinquent officer. The principle that a
man cannot be vexed twice on the same cause of action having no application to
departmental proceedings, the order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to
Aziz Ahmed Hashmatullah Vs. Secretary, (Now Principal Secretary), Govt. of
Bangladesh and others, 15 BLD (AD) 13.
Servants (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1984
It is mandatory for the Corporation to serve
a second show cause notice to the delinquent of the proposed penalty before the
final order is made. A Corporation having violated the mandatory provision for
removing an employee from service, the order of removal is illegal and without
Rahman Vs. Bangladesh Forest industries Development Corporation 13 BLD (HCD) 182.
Servants (Discipline And Appeals) Rules, 1985
per notification dated 24.6.86, the Secretary being the Designated Officer can
lawfully do everything except imposing a major penalty and the same needs no
approval of the President who is the appointing authority of the respondent.
(4) of Rule 6 of the Rules only speaks that no major penalty can be imposed by
any subordinate authority other than the appointing authority. Secretary being
the designated authority, the imposition of minor punishment has been lawfully
passed in the case although the charge-sheet was submitted by the authority for
imposing major penalty.
of Bangladesh and another Vs M.A. Malek, 17 BLD (AD) 161.
of departmental proceeding within 150 days
the instant case, no final decision was taken by the authority within 150 days
as contemplated by Rule 7(9) of the Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1985. But since the Tribunal found the very appointment of the
petitioner as false and fictitious the Appellate Division refused to exercise
its discretion to interfere in the case of a departmental proceeding as the
petitioner would not be able to improve his case in a fresh inquiry.
Salam Vs Govt. of Bangladesh, represented by the Collector of Customs and
Excise, Dhaka and others, 17 BLD (AD) 214.
on review to be excluded in computing limitation.
time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 is to be excluded in computing the period
of limitation in filing a case before the Administrative Tribunal.
Kabir Vs Bangladesh, 16 BLD (AD) 85.
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985-Rule 22 prescribes the manner of
disposal of an appeal by an aggrieved Govt. Servant, but no time limit has been
fixed for disposal of appeals by the appellate authority.
there was a provision for disposal of an appeal within 60 working days, but by
the present amendment, this time limit has been abolished. But even in the
absence of any time limit for disposal of the appeals by the appellate
authority, inordinate delay in disposal of the appeal is deprecated inasmuch as
the aggrieved party cannot ventilate his a grievance before the proper forum
before disposal of his appeal.
Alam Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of land, Govt. of Bangladesh & others, 13
BLD (HCD) 639.
reference to rule 27 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1985 makes it clear that the Rules of 1984 were repealed and as per sub-rule
(2). of rule 27 of the Rules of 1985 there was no bar in disposing of the
proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1985 as the
proceeding was pending at the commencement of the Rules of 1985.
Rahman Vs Govt. of Bangladesh and ors., 18 BLD (AD) 245.