Government of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 421 of 2004

Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Moshfiqur Rahman ,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 422

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Government of Bangladesh

Respondent: Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2006-02-12

Government of Bangladesh

Vs.

Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah, 2006,

 V ADC (2008) 422

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin J
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J
 
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others ...................Petitioners
Vs.
Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah..........Respondent
 
Judgment         
February 12, 2006.

The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
The Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at the finding that the punishment that was awarded to the Respondent was not appropriate one and thereupon made the order.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Moshfiqur Rahman, Deputy Attorney General, instructed by B. Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Not represented- the Respondent.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 421 of 2004.
(From the Judgment and Order dated January 13, 2004 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 53 of 2000).
 
Judgment:
                         Md. Ruhul Amin J. - Delay is condoned.

2. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated January 13, 2004 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 53 of 2000 dismissing the same. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated January 20, 2000 of the Administrative Tribunal, Bogra in Administrative Tribunal Case No.19 of 1999 allowing the same in part and consequent thereupon modifying the punishment imposed on the Respondent herein to censure. The Administrative Tribunal by its aforesaid order set aside the order dismissing the departmental appeal of the Respondent No.1 and there­upon restored the previous pay scale of the Respondent and that also passed order for the payment of pension, gratuity and other benefits.

3. The Respondent joined in the service in 1961 as Constable and was promoted as S.I. on December 1, 1971 and thereafter promoted as Inspector on May 1, 1986, that on October 30, 1996 a departmental proceeding under the provision of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 was initiated against the Respondent. In due course the Respondent submitted his explanation and then an enquiry was held and a report was submitted on November 11, 1997 holding the Respondent guilty. Thereupon second show cause notice was issued to the Respondent and to that he replied, that the authority by the order dated June 22, 1998 upon dawn grading time scale one step for two years demoted the Respondent. As against the order of punishment the Respondent filed appeal and the same was dismissed. Thereupon the Respondent filed the case before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at the finding that the punish­ment that was awarded to the Respondent was not appropriate one and thereupon made the order as stated hereinbefore.

4. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal as against the order of the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal on con­sideration of the materials on record affirmed the order of the Administrative Tribunal.

5. The learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal were in error in setting aside the punishment imposed on the Respondent upon taking extraneous matter into con­sideration. On perusal of the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal we are of the view that on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety the order passed by the said Tribunal appears to us was appropriate one and thus in affirming the said order of the Administrative Tribunal, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error.

6. In the background of the discussion made hereinabove we find no substance in the petition.

Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Ed.