Janata Bank and another Vs. Sheikh Shamsur Rahman and others

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1182 of 2007

Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Aftab Hossain,A.B.Bayezid,,

Citation: 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 58

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Janata Bank and another

Respondent: Sheikh Shamsur Rahman and others

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2008-04-06

Janata Bank and another

 Vs.

Sheikh Shamsur Rahman and others, 2008,

 17 BLT (AD) (2009) 58

Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Abdul Matin J
 
Janata Bank and another.........................Petitioners
Vs.
Sheikh Shamsur Rahman and others….......Respondents
 
Judgment
April 6, 2008.
 
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section—4 with
Janata Bank (Employees) Service Rules, 1981
Regulation- 29(1)(b)
It was held that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal (A.A.T.) and the Administrative Tribunal (A.T.) were not in error in setting aside the order of dismissal or in other words declaring the order of dismissal illegal. The direction given by the Administrative Tribunal in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be quite legal since the order of dismissal has been passed illegally and consequently he was at all the time in service as order of dismissal was illegal. The Administrative Tribunal was quite correct in making the direction for payment of the arrear salary and other benefits as well as pension benefits.
 
Lawyers Involved:
A.B.Bayezid, Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahabubar Rahman, Advocate-on-record- For the Petitioner.
Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-record-For Respondent No.1
Not represented- Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1182 of 2007.
 
Judgment:
             Md. Ruhul Amin CJ. - This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 5, 2007 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Case No.97 of 2002 affirming the judgment and order dated August 25, 2002 of the Administrative Tribunal Dhaka-3 in Administrative Tribunal Case No.16 of 1998.
2. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the judgment sought to be appealed upheld the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal in the case mentioned above.
3. It was the case of the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal (A.T.) that he joined in the service of the then United Bank (later on Janata Bank) on February 16, 1966, that he was serving as Senior Officer of the Janata Bank at K.D. Ghosh Road Branch, Khulna and a departmental proceeding was drawn against him by framing charge and he was served with a show cause notice and in reply to that he denied the allegations made in the show cause notice, that an inquiry committee was constituted which enquired into the allegations made against him, that enquiry was held in his absence although he appeared before the inquiry committee, that the authority without serving second show cause notice dismissed the respondent i.e. the respondent No.1 herein i.e. the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal, he preferred departmental appeal against the order of dismissal and that as the appellate authority delayed disposal of the appeal he filed the case before the  Administrative Tribunal in the light of the amended provision of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980.
4. The case was contested by the petitioner herein by filing written statement denying the averments made in the petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein i.e. petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal. It was the specific case of the Bank that the case was not maintainable as there was no cause of action for filing the case. The Administrative Tribunal after considering the materials brought on record by the parties allowed the case upon observing "Considering the facts and circumstances coupled with the above stated reminders and departmental appeal etc. I am convinced to hold that the petition has been filed within time. In other words, it is not barred by limitation. The petitioner cannot be victimized or made scapegoat due to the latches of the Bank authority in taking decision of the departmental appeal/review. Thus I hold that the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner in service is not tenable in law" and thereupon set aside the order of dismissal on the finding that the said order of dismissal in respect of the respondent No.1 herein i.e. petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal was illegal, void, without jurisdiction and thereupon made the direction to the following effect "O.Ps. are directed to grant pension benefits and give arrear salary and other attending benefits to the petitioner till the date of his superannuation".
5. As against the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal the petitioner herein filed appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record held "It appear from the authority started a departmental proceeding against him under regulation 28(11) (a) of the Janata Bank (Employees) Service Regulations, 1981 and admittedly second show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner. Thus we found that the regulation 28(12) (b) of the Janata Bank (Employees) Service Regulation, 1981 is not applicable in this case" and that also held "Considering the above facts and circumstances, we find that the Tribunal below has rightly allowed the A.T. case" and thereupon dismissed the appeal.
It may be mentioned the Administrative Tribunal (A.T.) held that the Regulation 29(1)(b) of the Janata Bank (Employees) Service Rule, 1981 was not applicable in the case of the respondent No.1 herein since the authority started proceeding against him under Regulation 28(11)(a) of the Janata Bank (Employees) Service Regulation, 1981.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal (A.A.T.) and Administrative Tribunal (A.T.) as well as other materials on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show that the order of dismissal was passed upon due compliance of the procedure i.e. upon serving second show cause notice.
7. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal (A.A.T.) and the Administrative Tribunal (A.T.) were not in error in setting aside the order of dismissal or in other words declaring the order of dismissal illegal.    The direction given by the Administrative Tribunal in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be quite legal since the order of dismissal has been passed illegally and consequently he was at all time in service as order of   dismissal was illegal. The Administrative Tribunal was quite correct in making the direction for payment of the arrear salary and other benefits as well as pension benefits.
In the background of the discussion made hereinbefore we do not find merit in the petition.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Ed.