Muhammad Muslim Ali Vs. Bangladesh and others

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to appeal No. 149 of 1992

Judge: ATM Afzal ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Muhammad Muslim Ali,,

Citation: 12 BLD (AD) 193

Case Year: 1992

Appellant: Muhammad Muslim Ali

Respondent: Bangladesh and others

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 1992-5-21

Muhammad Muslim Ali

 Vs.

Bangladesh and others, 1992, (AD)

12 BLD (AD) 193

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
MH Rahman J
ATM Afzal J             
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
 
Muhammad Muslim Ali………………………Petitioner

Vs.

Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment and others……………Respondents

 
Judgment
May 21st, 1992.

Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985

A further inquiry, whether is to be made after reinstating a Government Servant whose removal order has been set aside by a Court of law or Administrative Tribunal.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Muhammad Muslim Ali, In person-For the Petitioner.
Not Represented – The Respondents.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to appeal No. 149 of 1992
(From the Judgment and order dated 10.5.1990 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 35 of 1989).
 
Judgment:
            ATM Afzal J : This application is from the judgment and order dated 10.5.1990 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 35 of 1989 upholding those of the Administrative Tribunal dated 6.8.89 in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 172 of 1988.

2. The petitioner, a former Upazila Magistrate and Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Establish­ment, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, appeared in Person.

3. Following departmental inquiry, he was removed from service on 4.8‑85 on charges of inefficiency and misconduct. He filed case No. 264 of 1985 before the Administrative Tribunal against the said order which was dismissed but on appeal the order Of removal was set aside on 12.11.86 with the observation that if the authority so desired, it could reopen the departmental Proceeding from the stage of second show cause notice. The authority started the inquiry in terms of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner accompanied by a copy of the inquiry report (which report was not supplied earlier and to which exception was taken by the Appellate Tribunal) and again removed the petitioner from service by order dated 14.10.87 after considering his reply. The petitioner went to the Administrative Tribunal again complaining against the order of removal and being unsuccessful there, took an appeal which, as already noticed, and also proved abortive.

4. The Petitioner contends that the further inquiry which was held by the authority after the first order of removal from service was set aside by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was illegal because he was not re‑instated before holding such inquiry. The said inquiry was held against the petitioner as a member of the public and not as a Government servant which is not contemplated under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985, the Petitioner submitted further.

5. There is no substance in the contention of the petitioner. It is not required that a further inquiry is to be made after reinstating the Government Servant whose removal order has been set aside by a court of law or Administrative Tribunal. Once the authority decided to hold a further inquiry the Government Servant "shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the authority from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further order" The condition of further inquiry, however, is that the decision to do so shall have to be taken within 30 days from the date of decision of the Court or Administrative Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Appellate Tribunal Satisfied itself that the authority had taken the decision within 30 days as provided in the Rules.

6. Rule 11(3) (4) of the aforesaid Discipline and Appeal Rules 1985 which is material for the present purpose read as follows:
            “11. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of, or by a decision of, a Court of Law or Administrative Tribunal and the authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decided to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the authority from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. In such an eventuality, the limitation imposed under rule 7(9) shall count from the date of decision to proceed against the accused following the court decision.
             (4) Further inquiry under sub‑rule (3) against a Government servant shall not be held unless the decision to do so is taken within 30 working days from the date of decision of the court or Administrative Tribunal."

The Appellate Tribunal rightly found that further inquiry was held in accordance with the Rules. There is thus no substance in this petition which is dismissed after condoning the delay in filing the same.
Ed.