AKM Ali Imam Vs. DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute & another

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 265 of 1997

Judge: Mahmudul Amin Choudhury ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: MA Tariq,,

Citation: 54 DLR (AD) 05

Case Year: 2002

Appellant: AKM Ali Imam

Respondent: DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute & another

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2001-5-27

AKM Ali Imam

 Vs.

DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute & another, 2002, (AD)

54 DLR (AD) 05

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present: 
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury CJ
Mainur Reza Chowdhury J
M Gholam Rabbani J
Md. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Fazlul Karim J                                        
 
AKM Ali Imam......................................Petitioner

Vs.

DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute & another....................Respondents
 
Judgment
May 27, 2001.
 
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 (V of 1981),
Section 4

The Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982,
Rule 7
The execution case was dismissed on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal was declaratory without any direction for reinstatement and as such the said order is not executable.
 
Lawyers Involved:
MA Tariq, Advocate, instructed by Sharifuddin Chaklader, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
Not represented—The Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 265 of 1997.
(From the judgment and order dated 6-1-1997 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 1996).
 
Judgment:
                  Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ.- This petition for leave to appeal is against judgment and order dated 6-1-1997 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 1996 affirming judgment and order dated 13-1-1996 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka in Execution Case No.3 of 1995.

2. The short fact leading to this petition is that, the petitioner was a Senior Scientific Officer of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute on deputation from the Ministry of Agriculture and he was sent to New Zealand for Post Graduate training but within the period fixed he did not return to this country and was absent for more than five years. A departmental proceeding was initiated by the Director General of the aforesaid Institute and by order dated 13-1-1988 the petitioner was removed from service. Against that AT Case No.201 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner which was allowed and the Tribunal set aside the order of removal on the ground that the borrowing authority had no jurisdiction to pass order of removal from service of the petitioner but at the same time refused to order his reinstatement and a decision was taken by the Ministry of Agriculture for elimination of the petitioner from service on the ground of continuous absence for more than five years. Thereafter on 27-3-1995 the petitioner submitted a joining report before the Director but that was refused leading to the filing of the present Execution Case No.3 of 1995.

3. The Administrative Tribunal then by judgment dated 13-1-1996 dismissed the execution case against which the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 1996 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal but that was also dismissed.

4. Mr. MA Tariq, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that when the Administrative Tribunal declared that the petitioner’s removal from service is illegal he ought to have been allowed to join service. The learned Advocate led us through the judgment of the Tribunal as well as of the Appellate Tribunal.

5. It appears that both the Tribunals dismissed the execution case on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal in AT Case No.201 of 1990 is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and, as such, order passed by the Tribunal is not executable. In view of the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid AT Case No. 201 of 1990 we hold that both the Tribunals rightly dismissed Execution Case No. 3 of 1995 and there is nothing to interfere with the same.

There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

Ed.