Sree Hare Krishna Das. (Petitioner)
Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, President Secretariat, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bangabhaban, Dhaka and others (Respondents)
Md. Ruhul Amin J
MM Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Judgment : May 8, 2004.
Case Referred to-
42 DLR (AD) 214.
Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner
Not represented- the Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1360 of 2002.
(From the judgment and order dated 1st June 2002 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 69 of 1995).
Md. Tafazzul Islam J.- This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 1.6.2002 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal at Dhaka in Appeal No. 69 of 1995 affirming those of dated 25.3.95 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka dismissing Administrative Tribunal Case No. 93 of 1992.
2. The petitioner instituted the above case praying for declaration that the order of the rejection of petition for review dated 21.12.91 filed by him is illegal and void and also praying for his reinstatement in the service, stating inter alia that the petitioner joined his service as Munsiff at Mymensingh Sadar on 10:2.69 and by dint of his merit and diligence he was duly promoted as Subordinate Judge and then as Additional District and Sessions Judge and he also got a time scale; while the petitioner was serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Jessore by Notification dated 15.11.84 suddenly he was dismissed from service under Martial Law Order No. 9 of 1982 without calling for any explanation and/or without affording him any opportunity to defend the allegations which were made against him; the petitioner then filed several applications to the then President of Bangladesh for reconsideration and review of the order of dismissal but receiving no response he filed Writ Petition No. 396 of 1989 before the High Court Division challenging the impugned order of dismissal from the service and by order dated 30.10.1991′ the Rule was made absolute directing the Principal Secretary to the President of Bangladesh to form a forum for review of the case of the petitioner; against the above judgment and order the respondent No.2 filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Appellate Division but subsequently the same was withdrawn; the Government formed a general review forum for the purpose of consideration of the review cases by general notification but with regard to the direction given in the above Writ Petition No.396 of 1989 on 30.10.91 no forum for review was formed and no petition for review was also called from the petitioner or from the office of the Chief Martial Law Administrator and/or President’s Secretariat and it is only the Joint Secretary (Admn) of the Ministry of Law and Justice directed the petitioner to file review petition addressing him; the petitioner then filed review petition addressing the Joint Secretary (Admn) Ministry of Law and Justice but then the so called review forum did not ask the petitioner to appear before it to explain his case and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard in person and defend his case, by letter dated 21.12.91 the petitioner was informed that by order dated 11.12.91 the forum rejected the above review petition; the above decision of rejection alleged to be passed by the review forum was required to be examined, perused and approved by the Hon’ble President of Bangladesh but nothing having been done in this regard, the rejection of review petition is illegal.
3. The Administrative Tribunal by judgment and order dated 25.3.1995 dismissed the above case and being aggrieved the petitioner filed Appeal No.69 of 1995 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal but the same was also dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was illegally dismissed from service under Martial Law Order 9 of 1982 and in Writ Petition No. 396 of 1989 the High Court Division directed the Principal Secretary to the President of Bangladesh to create appropriate forum for presentation by the petitioner the review petition and connecting papers before the President but in fact no such appropriate forum as directed was created and it is merely the Joint Secretary (Admn) Ministry of Law and Justice who entertained the review petition and same was also rejected as it is evident from letter dated 21.12.1991; the Administrative Appellate Tribunal illegally held that the learned Member of the Administrative Tribunal was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to scrutinize the order of dismissal of the petitioner as he was dismissed from service under Martial Law Order 9 of 1982, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal also failed to consider that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is the outcome of conspiracy by some interested quarters and both the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service as well as the order of rejection of the review petition were illegal, malafide and against the principle of natural justice; both the Tribunals erred in not giving any importance to the failure of production by the respondent No. 1 the personal file No. Judl.3/3 C5/84 dated 23.4.984 of the petitioner which was called for by the Administrative Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that in similar situation relief was given to Mr. Mahtabuddin a dismissed employee under Martial Law Order No. 9 of 1982 in the case reported in 42 DLR (AD) 214.
5. As it appears the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding as follows: –
“From the record that in compliance with the direction given by the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Writ Petition No. 396/89 as preferred by the petitioner, appropriate review committee was formed consisting of 5 members, Additional Secretary in-charge of Ministry of Law and Justice being convenor of the said committee to dispose of the review petitions pending filed by the aggrieved persons including the petitioner vide Memo No.1060- Biehar- 5/3M-20/91 dated 12.10.1991 subsequently, decision over all the review petitions including the petitioner’s one was taken and petitioner’s review petition was rejected. This decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Joint Secretary (Administration) Ministry of Law and Justice vide Memo No. 1568(5) Aine-13-Shova-77/91 dated 21.12.1991. Both the letters are self explanatory so the finding of the learned Member of the Administrative Tribunal that the A.T.Case No.93/92 filed by the petitioner was premature and not maintainable appears to be erroneous.
6. Before we part with the discussion, it will be pertinent to mention in this connection that before the petitioner was dismissed from service an enquiry was held by Mr. Latifur Rahman the then justice, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division on the allegation as brought against the petitioner by the then District and Sessions Judge Pabna about the honesty and integrity of the petitioner. In enquiry report Justice Latifur Rahman has mentioned that during enquiry he examined as many as 20 records of sessions cases (Murder case) disposed of by the petitioner and on scrutiny of the records he found that in 16 out of 20 cases the petitioner passed orders of acquittal quite illegally and there was every scope of doubt of his honesty and integrity and he does not have good reputation at Pabna. He further opined that it was unsafe to retain such officer in judicial office. He submitted list of the cases examined during enquiry together with the report. District Judge Chittagong also submitted an adverse report against the petitioner while he was acting as Munsif at Satkhania. So reputation of the petitioner as a Judicial Officer was not good and his honesty and integrity questionable.”
7. We are of the view that the above finding of the Appellate Administrative Tribunal is based on correct consideration and appreciation of materials on record. So we find no cogent reason to interfere with the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.
8. It also appears that the facts of the instant case is different from the facts of the case reported in 42 DLR (AD) 214 inasmuch as in the present case the review committee, after considering the review petition filed by the petitioner, rejected the same.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Source : 11 MLR (AD) 2006, 146