Sudangshu Kumar Saha (Petitioner)
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Post and Telegraph, and others (Respondents)
ATM Afzal CJ
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
Md. Abdur Rouf J
Md. Ismailuddin Sarker J
Judgment : August 9th, 1995
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 25(2) (3)
A reference to the Rule shows if a Government servant is convicted of any offence other than an offence specified in the Public Servants (Dismissal on Conviction) Ordinance, 1985 the authority decides to punish him under this Rule without drewing up any departmental proceeding………………………….. (5)
Md. Serajul Huq, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record— For the Petitioner.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 128 of 1994
(From the Judgment and order dated 6-1-94 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 18 of 1993).
Latifur Rahman J The petitioner who was an Operator in the Foreign Post Office was dismissed from his service with effect from 11-6-88 by an order passed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner challenged his order of dismissal before the Administrative Tribunal in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 44 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 16.3-93. Against that judgment and order the petitioner preferred Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 18 of 1993 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the same was also dismissed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 6-1-94. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is seeking cave to appeal before us.
2. On 11-6-88 Non-First Information Report Case No. 418 of 1977 was registered against the petitioner under section 77 of the DMP Ordinance. The allegation against him was that he was found shouting in drunken condition breaking the tranquility of the area. On this allegation the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days on 11-6-88. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhaka upheld the order of conviction but modified the sentence of imprisonment to a payment of fine of Taka 200.00 only. This fact having come to the knowledge of the authority the petitioner was dismissed from his service without any show cause notice. Subsequently, his departmental appeal was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred the Administrative Tribunal Case.
3. The Post Master General, C Circle, Dhaka, respondent No. 2 by filing a written objection contested the case by contending that the dismissal order was passed properly under Rule 25(2) (3) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and, as such, the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Md. Serajul Huq, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in interpreting and, considering the provisions of Rule 25(2)(3) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and arrived at an erroneous decision on misreading and misconstruing the provisions of the said Rule and as such the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
5. A reference to the relevant Rule clearly shows that if a Government servant is convicted of any offence other than an offence specified in the Public Servants (Dismissal on Conviction) Ordinance, 1985 the authority can impose any penalty if the authority decides to punish him under this Rule without drawing up any departmental proceeding or giving an opportunity to the Government Servant to show cause against the proposed penalty. In view of Sub-Rule (2)(3) of Rule 25, we do not find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal committed any illegality in affirming the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Further, the dismissal order having been passed on 21-6-88, the order of the Administrative Tribunal was modified giving effect to the order of dismissal from 21-6-88 instead of 11-6-88 i.e. the day on which order of conviction was passed. The learned Advocate failed to show any illegality in the impugned judgment and order. The petition is also barred by 12 days.
The petition is dismissed.
Source : 49 DLR (AD) (1997) 129