Case No: Civil Review Petition No. 19 of 1994
Judge: ATM Afzal ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Nurul Huq,,
Citation: 49 DLR (AD) (1997) 108
Case Year: 1997
Appellant: Nurul Hussain
Respondent: Government of the Republic of Bangladesh
Subject: Administrative Law,
Delivery Date: 1996-4-8
Government of the Republic of Bangladesh, 1997,
49 DLR (AD) (1997) 108
ATM Afzal CJ
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
Nurul Hussain………………………… Petition
Government of the Republic of Bangladesh…………….Respondent
April 8th, 1996
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order XLVII rule 1
A review was never meant and allowed to be utilized as another opportunity for rehearing the matter which is already closed by a final judgment.
Nurul Huq, Senior Advocate, instructed by ANM Manzurul Hassan, Advocates-on-Record for the Petitioner.
Civil Review Petition No. 19 of 1994.
(From the Judgment and order dated August 25, 1994 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 111 of 1993).
ATM Afzal CJ: This is a petition for review of the order passed on 25 August, 1994 dismissing CPLA. No. 111 of 1993 filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was a District Co-operative Officer who was dismissed from service by order dated 16-11-1990 on the charge of misconduct following a departmental proceeding. Facts of the case have been set out in the order which is the subject matter of the present review. The petitioner’s challenge to his order of dismissal proved abortive in the Administrative Tribunal whereupon he took an appeal and the Appellate Tribunal substituted the order of dismissal with an order of compulsory retirement with all benefits as per rules. The petitioner’s prayer for leave to appeal from the appellate order also proved unsuccessful and now this petition for review of the order dismissing his leave petition.
3. Mr. Md. Nurul Huq, learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner was found guilty of the alleged misconduct without any evidence whatsoever, that the act alleged against the petitioner was not in violation of either any Government or departmental order and that there was thus no basis for finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Mr. Huq also submitted that even if the petitioner was guilty of the alleged act, it was merely an irregularity and, as such, the sentence passed upon him should have been less severe.
4. It is well known that a review was never meant and allowed to be utilised as another opportunity for rehearing the matter which is already closed by a final judgment. The points raised by Mr. Nurul Huq have already been considered while dismissing the leave petition and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same questions in different form. There is no occasion for review.
The petition is dismissed.