Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1469 of 2005
Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Syed Mahbubur Rahman ,,
Citation: V ADC (2008) 573
Appellant: Md. Abdus Satter
Respondent: Government of Bangladesh
Subject: Administrative Law,
Delivery Date: 2007-11-8
Md. Abdus Satter
Government of Bangladesh, 2007,
V ADC (2008) 573
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
M. M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Md. Abdul Matin J
Md. Abdus Satter ...........................Petitioner
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka & ors… ........Respondents
November 8, 2007.
The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found that the Miscellaneous Case was rightly dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal as the petitioner was not prevented by sufficient cause and the grounds taken in the Miscellaneous Case before the Tribunal and those taken before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal were different and rightly disbelieved the story of illness of the appellant petitioner.
Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Not represented-the Respondents.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1469 of 2005.
(From the judgment and order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03 of 2005.)
Md. Abdul Matin J. - This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03 of 2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Barisal in Administrative Tribunal Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2004 arising out of Administrative Tribunal Case No.49 of 2002 dismissing the Miscellaneous Case for default.
2. The facts, in short, are that after completion of his graduation degree on 09.07.1973 the petitioner joined as Junior Assistant in Bangladesh Krishi Bank, Patuakhali Branch and was subsequently promoted as Officer of the Bank. While the petitioner was serving as second Officer of Amtali Branch an allegation was brought against him alleging that he recommended for sanctioning loan and a departmental proceeding being No.12/1995-1996 was started against him; the matter was enquired into by a two member committee which submitted report. The authority concerned awarded a penalty to deposit an amount equivalent to 7(seven) days basic salary to the Bank; the petitioner being aggrieved preferred Departmental Appeal No.76 of 2000-2001 which was also dismissed and hence the case.
3. The defendant No.5 contested the case by filing written statement denying material allegations made in the plaint contending, inter-alia, that the penalty was awarded in accordance with law.
4. The case was fixed on 25.05.2004 for hearing but the petitioner failed to appear before the Administrative Tribunal on the date fixed and as a result the case was dismissed for default by the order dated 25.05.2004.
5. The petitioner then filed Miscellaneous Case No.3 of 2004 for restoration of the case on the ground that he was contesting the case and 29.03.2004 he met his engaged Advocate Mr. S.M. Abdullah who assured him that he would inform him about the next date of the case but the learned Advocate neither informed the petitioner nor took any step on 25.05.2004 and the petitioner had no laches or negligence in the matter.
6. The respondent No. 5 resisted the Miscellaneous Case by filing written objection denying the allegations made in the case.
7. The Miscellaneous Case No.3 of 2004 was fixed on 18.12.2004 for hearing while the petitioner was ailing and was not in a position to appear before the Tribunal and informed his Advocate about his illness and the learned Advocate filed an application before the Administrative Tribunal on the ground of illness of the petitioner but the Tribunal was pleased to reject the application and then dismissed the Miscellaneous case.
8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 18.12.2004 the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2005 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2005 and hence this petition.
9. Heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other papers on record.
10. The learned Advocate-on-Record submits that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner had sufficient cause for non-appearance in the Miscellaneous Case on the date fixed for hearing and the reasons for rejection of the Miscellaneous Case were mere surmises and conjectures.
11. The learned Advocate-on-Record further submits that the grounds taken in Memorandum of Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and in the Tribunal below were not different but the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider this aspect of the matter and thus committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal.
12. It appears that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the Miscellaneous Case considered the relevant part of the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the Administrative Tribunal which runs as under:
“দরখাস্তকারী পক্ষকে ইতিপূর্বে একাধিকবার সময় ও শেষ বারের মত সময় প্রদান করা সত্বে ও দরখাস্ত কারী পক্ষে অদ্য পুনরায় সময়ের প্রার্থনা করা হইয়াছে ৷ ইতিপূর্বে দরখাস্তকারী অসুস্হ মর্মে সময়ের প্রার্থনা করা হয় কিন্তু দরখাস্তকারীর অসুস্হতার সমর্থনে কোন মেডিকেল সার্টিফিকেট দাখিল করেন নাই৷ ইতিপূর্বে একাধিকবার সময়ের দরখাস্ত দাখিল করিয়া দরখাস্তকারীর অসুস্থ মর্মে উল্লেখ করিয়া দরখাস্তের সমর্থনে এম/সি দাখিল না করায় দরখাস্তকারি পক্ষে সময়ের দরখাস্তে বর্ণিত কারণ যথার্থ ও সন্তোষজনক না হওয়া সত্বেও ন্যায় বিচারের স্বার্থে ইতিপূর্বে দরখাস্তকারি পক্ষকে একাধিকবার শেষবারের মত সময় প্রদান করা হইয়াছে । অদ্য পুনরায় দরখাস্তকারি পক্ষে সময়ের প্রার্থনা করিয়া দরখাস্তে উল্লেখ করা হইয়াছে যে, দরখাস্তকারি অসুস্থ কিন্তু উক্ত সময়ের দরখাস্তে যেমন সত্য পাই নাই , তেমনি দরখাস্তকারি অসুস্থ মর্মে কোন এম/সি দাখিল করেন নাই। সুতরাং সময়ের দরখাস্তে বর্ণিত যথার্থ সন্তোষজনক ও বিশ্বাসযোগ্য নহে । সেই কারনে সময়ের দরখাস্তটি মঞ্জুর যোগ্য নহে বিধায় না মঞ্জুর করা গেল।”
13. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found that the Miscellaneous Case was rightly dismissed by the Administrative Tribunal as the petitioner was not prevented by sufficient cause. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal further found that the grounds taken in the Miscellaneous Case before the Tribunal and those taken before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal were different and rightly disbelieved the story of illness of the appellant petitioner.
We find that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference by this Division.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.