Plaintiff-Headmaster suspended for misappropriation—a three member enquiry committee with a chairman constituted—written question provided and answered—plaintiff dismissed without a 2nd show cause notice—no scope of principles of equity and justice — dismissal order held legal.
The plaintiff had the full opportunity to examine the papers and place his case. He did not ask for any personal hearing nor did he ask for examination of any witness or production of any document. The enquiry report, on the basis of papers and the plaintiffs answer to the committee quires, was endorsed by all the three members. The order of dismissal, based on that report, was approved by the Board. Such approval was not challenged at the appellate stage.
Post Office High School Vs. Asgar Ali & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-92
The Right and Duty of a Lawyer Engaged by a Litigant Public
A lawyer engaged right to absent himself from a court when the case of his client comes up for hearing. It. is the bounded duty on the part of the learned lawyer to attend to that case in the court or he can make such other arrangement for the proper
representation of the case of his client in the court. The learned lawyer owes a duty not only to his client but also to the court —A learned lawyer owes a sacred duty to the society not to encourage shady cases by which courts might be over burdened denying justice to the genuine litigants. The learned members of the Bar as the officers of the court and also as the companion of the cause of justice may have valuable contribution to the cause of justice if they screen out frivolous and fraudulent litigation’s and refuse to accept them saving the courts from being over flooded with frivolous, fraudulent and misconceived cases. It is expected that the co-operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming in this regard.
Amirunnessa & Ors. Vs. Abdul Mannan & Ors. 6BLT (HCD)-161
Regulations-26& 27 (2)
Inspector of Schools, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dhaka, purporting to extend the petitioner’s service for two years as the Headmaster of Hammadia High School, Dhaka, with effect from 1-9-95 — Held: Only the Managing Committee of the school as the appointing authority of the petitioner could legally permit him to continue as the Headmaster of the aforesaid school till the end of 1995 as he had attained the age of super annexation on 30.8.95. But unfortunately, the petitioner did get any such permission. Thus petitioner’s continuation in service as the Headmaster of the said school after 30.8.95 was also not covered by the aforesaid Regulation 26.
Besides, the petitioner’s prayer for extension of service having not been recommended by the Managing Committee, under Regulation 27(2) aforementioned, the Board has no legal authority to grant extension of his service under the authority contemplated therein.
Md. Faziur Rahman Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 5BLT (AD)-148