The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985

 

Rule-7 (5)

Legal opinion—case of removal from service—the Enquiry Officer’s findings are never binding on the punishing authority who has the duty, obligation and jurisdiction to give an independent finding 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—the law requires that the recording of reasons is a must where the punishing authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but the law does not require that the recording of reasons should be a Legal Opinion”. [Para- 13]

Trading Corporation of Bangladesh Vs. Kazi Abdul Hye 6 BLT (AD)-8.

Rule-7 (2)

Respondent was a permanent employee of the Public Health Engineering Department, having been posted last at Kushtia Sadar. He obtained leave from 1-7-76 to 3-7-76 on account of the illness of his father who along with his mother and his wife and children were at that time living at Magura town. He applied for extension of leave till 8-7-76. Thereafter he himself fell ill and applied for extension of leave. He reported for duty on 1-10-77 but came to learn that by an order dated 25.4.77 he had been discharged from service with effect from 1-7-76. He challenged the order of discharge on the ground that no proceedings were instituted against him for unauthorized absence or on any other allegations — held : Admittedly there is no dispute that the appellant sent a show cause notice to the respondent asking him to show cause why he shall not be removed from service on the charge of prolonged and continued absence from duties — for purposes of sending a show cause notice containing charges against him the appellant was not obliged to send the same to his fleeting address at Magura of even to cause the notice to be published in a newspaper — if the appellant had acted without appointing an enquiry officer in view of the preposterous facts presented by the respondent, then it cannot be said that the action taken was wholly without authority or in violation of the 1976 Rules. [Paras- 9 & 11]

Superintending Engg. & Ors. Vs. K. Asaduzzaman & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-78

Rule-7 (11)

The respondent was placed under suspension and a proceeding case drawn against him on a charge of misconduct on 23 February, 1982 under the Rules of 1976 and during the pending of this proceeding the new Rules of 1984 came into operation on 19.7.84. The respondent was compulsory retired from his service by the appellant on 20 February, 1985 — The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found that the respondent was giving of misconduct but allowed the appeal and set aside the order of retirement on the ground that the departmental proceeding falls within the mischief of Rule 7 (11) of the Rules of 1984 as the said proceeding was not completed within the time limit prescribed by this Rule — Held: In the present case, the respondent having not been served with the charge sheet under the Rules of 1984, sub-rule (ii) of Rule 7 is not applicable in the case of the respondent —we hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal grossly misinterpreted rule (ii) of-Rule 7 of the New Rules of 1984 and wrongly made the same applicable in the present case — Appeal is allowed.

Additional General Manager & Anr Vs. Mizanur Rahman. 4BLT (AD)-122                                                                                                                   

Rule-7 Read with Rule-6 (4)

As 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 President who is the appointing authority of the respondent. [Para-9]

Bangladesh & Anr. Vs. M.A. Malek 5 BLT (AD)-222

 

Rule-4 (3) (a)

Respondent was convicted by Summary Martial Law Court. After serving out the sentences of imprisonment and after payment of fine the respondent filed various representations to the Government for his re-instatement but ultimately the authority dismissed the respondent from service — the respondent filed Administrative Tribunal case, against the order of dismissal. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case. But the Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that the order of dismissal was passed illegally

— Held: We have gone through the impugned order of dismissal. The authority in view of the conviction of the respondent of a criminal offence decided whether the respondent should be punished under 1985 Rules and in fact decided to dismiss him from service under Rule 4(3) (a) of 1985 Rules. As no proceeding needs to brown up arid no opportunity needs to be given to the respondent for showing cause against the proposed penalty (under Rule 25 (3) of 1985 Rules) the Government passed the order of dismissal straightway. We find no illegality in it and the Appellate Tribunal was obviously on the wrong in finding the impugned order to be illegal. [Para- 12]

Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Golam Rahman Mallic 3 BLT (AD)- 196

 

Rule-7 (5)

Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that with the second show cause notice that was served on respondent No. 1 a copy of the enquiry report was not annexed depriving respondent No. 1 of giving a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty the mandatory requirement of law having not been complied with, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly set aside the order of removal and reinstated respondent No. 1 to his service. [Para-2]

Director Khulna Tele. Comm. Region Vs M. Islam & Anr 3 BLT (AD)-90.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.