Janata Bank Vs. Mr. Fazlul Hoq and another

Janata Bank, represented by its Chairman, and another. (Petitioners)


Mr. Fazlul Hoq and another. (Respondents)

Supreme Court

Appellate Division



MM Ruhul Amin CJ

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Md. Abdul Matin J

Judgment : October 16, 2008.

Lawyers :

A.B.M. Bayezid, Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahabubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioners.  

Bivash Chandra Biswas, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent. 



                 MM Ruhul Amin CJ.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5 June, 2007 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 55 of 2002 dismissing the appeal.

2. Short facts are that the appellant Md. Fazlul Haq joined in the service of Janata Bank on 27.01.73 as a clerk. Due to his satisfactory service record he was promoted to the post of officer at Janata Bank, Madhabpur Branch, Habigonj, all on a sudden, on 24.5.98 he was placed under suspension on the allegation of misconduct under Rule 38 of the Janata Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1995. On 12.7.98 a charge was framed against him under Rule 38 of the Janata Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1995 on the allegation that he mentioned higher and false qualification in A.C.R. and he was asked to show cause as to why he would not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his written statement denying all allegations. Without considering his written statement an inquiry committee was formed to inquire into the matter. The inquiry, committee submitted a perverse report against the petitioner. On the basis of the perverse report the Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary Division, Janata Bank, Head Office, Dhaka issued the second show cause notice upon the petitioner proposing major penalty and finally issued the order dated 2.3.99 reducing the petitioner to the lower post and scale. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal on 23.3.99 and that the appeal was dismissed.

3. Hence, the petitioner filed A.T. Case No.284/99 in the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka. The learned member of the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka passed the order dated 8.6.2002 allowing the petition and directed the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in his former post of officer with all arrear salary and allowance as admissible under rules and also ordered that the authority is at liberty to proceed afresh further against the petitioner on the self same allegations. Being dissatisfied with the above order, the Bank, represented by the Managing Director, filed this appeal case against the judgment and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka.

4. We have heard Mr. A.B.M. Bayezid, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bivash Chandra Biswas, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent and perused the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and other connected papers on record.

5.The Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that the allegations brought against him the respondent accused were true but he cannot be deprived of the benefit of the procedural defect of the departmental proceeding brought against him as the provisions of Fundamental Rule 29 which as contemplated by Regulation No.58 of the Janata Dank Employees Service Regulation, 1995 were net followed.

6. In our view the findings of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka are based on proper consideration of the materials on record.

We find no infirmity in the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

The petition is dismissed.

Source : 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 58