Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1658 of 2007
Judge: Md. Tafazzul Islam ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Md. Taherul Islam,Mr.Zahirul Islam,,
Citation: 14 MLR (AD) (2009) 298
Case Year: 2009
Appellant: Bangladesh Krishi Bank
Respondent: Md. Saidul Haque
Subject: Administrative Law,
Delivery Date: 2008-7-15
Md. Saidul Haque, 2008,
14 MLR (AD) (2009) 298.
MM Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Abdul Matin J
Bangladesh Krishi Bank, represented by the Managing Director and others……….Petitioners
Md. Saidul Haque...................Respondent
July 15, 2008.
Bangladesh Krishi Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1988—
Regulation 47— Is a clear bar to the imposition of penalty in a departmental proceedings during the pendency of criminal case against the accused on the self same matter-
In a departmental proceeding when additional charge are brought the accused must be given opportunity to show cause against those charge. Otherwise the enquiry proceedings shall be vitiated and the penalty imposed therin shall be illegal. When criminal case and departmental proceedings are started on the self same matter, the imposition of penalty in the departmental proceedings shall be held up till disposal of the criminal case.
In the instant can there had been gross violation of the mandatory requirement of law which rendered the impugned penalty of dismissal from service not sustainable in the eye of law.
Case Referred To-
Bangladesh Vs. Abdur Rahman Molla and others 27 DLR 428.
Mr. Md. Taherul Islam, Advoate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Mr.Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.1.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1658 of 2007.
(From the judgment and order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in A.A.T. Appeal No.70 of 1998).
Md. Tafazzul Islam J.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2007 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal passed in A.A.T. Appeal No. 70 of 1998 affirming those of dated 23.8.1998 of the learned Member, Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka passed in A.T. Case No.78 of 1996 dismissing the case.
2. The respondent filed the above A.T. Case No. 78 of 1996 on the averments that while he was serving as a "Godown Officer" in charge of M/s. Fish Homes Limited, he was placed under suspension on 25.9.95 and on 19.1.1994 the concerned authority framed charge against him under section 37(Ka), (Kha), (Ghha), (Ya) and (Cha) of Bangladesh Krishi Bank Karmachari Chakuri Probidhanamala, 1988 for gross negligence, misconduct, corruption and misappropriation of money proposing penalty of dismissal from service and he submitted reply to the same denying the allegations made against him and stating that he is not responsible for any loss incurred to Bangladesh Krishi Bank and he never resorted to any illegalities and just simply complied with the orders of his controlling authority but on 23.9.1993 a criminal case was lodged against him and an inquiry committee was also formed to inquire into the charges made against him.
3. But due to apprehension of his arrest he did not appear in the departmental proceeding and prayed for adjournment but refusing the prayer for adjournment the Enquiry Committee made enquiry against him ex-parte and submitted report giving opinion that all charges against him have been proved. Then the authority dismissed him from service on 31.10.1994. Then he, on 24.10.1994, filed departmental appeal which was rejected on 21.1.1996.
4.The petitioners contested the above case and filed written statements denying the material allegations arid contending that the case is not maintainable, barred by limitation, the performance of the respondent as godown officer was not satisfactory and he did not discharge his duties properly and he did many irregularities for which Bangladesh Krishi Bank incurred huge loss and as such a departmental proceeding was initiated against him wherein five charges were framed against him but the respondent did not appear before the Inquiry Committee and after holding inquiry as per rule 41 of the Bangladesh Krishi Bank Karmachari Chakuri Probidhanmala, 1988, the Inquiry Committee found the respondent guilty of all charges and accordingly submitted Report to the authority on 8.6.1994 and then the petitioner was dismissed from his service on 31.10.1994. Thereafter the respondent filed departmental appeal, on 24.12.1994 which was rejected on 21.4.1994 by the appellate authority.
5. The learned Member of the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka after hearing, allowed the case. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred A.A.T. No. 111 of 2001 and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, after hearing, dismissed the appeal.
6. We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the impugned judgment and order and other connected papers.
7. As it appears the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissed the above A.T. Case No.78 of 1996 holding that the authority on the self same allegations filed Panchlaish P.S. Case No.22(9) 93 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1562/93 wherein the respondent was made an accused No.2 in which warrant of arrest being issued upon the respondent he went on absconding and while the above criminal case was pending on self same matter the Enquiry Committee held the enquiry ex parte and then the authority vide order dated 31.10.1994 dismissed the respondent from his service and subsequently the respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3528 of 1996 in which, on 28.7.1996, the High Court Division enlarged him on bail and that the charges against the respondent were about only 5 (five) delivery orders but at the time of ex parte inquiry the Inquiry Committee had taken into consideration additional 22 (twenty two) delivery orders against the respondent and the respondent was not asked to show cause against 22 delivery orders and that in the case of Bangladesh Vs. Abdur Rahman Molla and others 27 DLR 428 it has been held that when additional or new charges have been levelled against an accused officer over what contained in the enquiry report, opportunity should be given to the accused to meet those and failure of which renders the punishment inflicted illegal.
8. As it appears the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal relying on Regulation 47 of BKB Karmachari Chakuri Probidhanmala 1988 which is as follows-
কোন কর্মচারীর বিরুদ্ধে কোন আদালতে একই বিষয়ের উপর কোন ফৌজদারী মামলা বা আইনগত কার্যদ্বারা বিচারাধীন থাকিলে, তাহার বিরুদ্ধে বিভাগীয় কার্যধারা সম্পাদনের ব্যাপারে কোন বাধা থাকিবে না। কিন্তু যদি কর্তৃপক্ষ বিভাগীয় কার্যধারায় উক্ত কর্মচারীর উপর কোন দন্ড আরোপ করার সিদ্ধান্ত গ্রহন করেন তাহা হইলে উক্ত আইনগত কার্যধারা নিষ্পত্তি না হওয়া পর্যন্ত কোন দন্ডারোপ স্থগিত থাকিবে”।
9. We are of the view that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal on proper consideration of the materials on record and correctly relying on Regulation 47 arrived at a correct decision and there is no illegality or infirmity in the above decision so as to call for any interference.
The petition is dismissed.