Shafiqul Islam Vs. Government of Bangladesh and another

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1097 of 2002

Judge: M. M. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Fazlul Karim,,

Citation: 57DLR (AD) 37

Case Year: 2005

Appellant: Shafiqul Islam

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and another

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2003-8-23

Shafiqul Islam

 Vs.

Government of Bangladesh and another,2005.

57DLR (AD) 37

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:                                                                 
Md. Ruhul Amin J
A S Ahammad J
MM Ruhul Amin J 
 
Shafiqul Islam………Petitioner           

Vs.

Government of Bangladesh and another……. Respondents 
 
Judgment
August 23, 2003.

The Bangladesh Service Rules
Rule 72(a)
There was no trial of the petitioner for allegation of the offence under section 161 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with section 5 (2) of the Act XI of 1947. The trial was stopped under section 339 (c) (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner was released as the trial could not be concluded within specified time.  So, he is not entitled to all arrear benefits.
 
Lawyers involved:
Fazlul Karim, Senior Advocate instructed by M Khaled Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record‑ For the Petitioner
Not represented‑ Respondents.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1097 of 2002. 
(From the judgment and order dated 29‑4‑2002 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 186 of 1999). 
 
Judgment:
                 MM Ruhul Amin J.- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29‑4‑2002 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Appeal No. 185 of 1999 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 6‑9‑1999 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 120 of 1994. 

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined in the service of the then Government of Pakistan in 1967. Subsequently, he was transferred to Dhaka. The petitioner used to pass different type sof bills of the Army personnel. One Harun‑or­Rashid, ex‑Army man, filed a criminal case in the Cantonment PS on 13‑11‑1983 against the petitioner out of grudge and he was arrested by the police and was placed under suspension on 7‑12‑1983 with effect from 27‑10‑1983. The case was ultimately brought before the Special Judge. Dhaka Division for holding trial for allegations of offence under section 161 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. As the prosecution failed to produce any witness within the specified period of time the criminal proceeding was stopped under section 339(C) (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner was released. He filed an application for reinstatement in the service with all benefits. The petitioner was allowed to join in the service but he was not given benefit of the period of suspension. The petitioner preferred appeal before the opposite party No.1
who allowed 75% of the petitioner's salary during the period of suspension and considered period of suspension countable for pension vide order dated 8‑11‑1993. 

3. Being aggrieved the petitioner instituted Administrative Tribunal case No. 120/94 before the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka which was dismissed on 6‑9‑99. 

4. The petitioner then filed Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 186 of 1999 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal but the appeal was also dismissed. 

5. We have heard Mr Fazlul Karim, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that under Rule 72 (a) of the Bangladesh Service Rules when a person is acquitted honorably in a criminal proceeding he is entitled to get all financial benefits during the period of suspension but the petitioner was allowed only 75 % benefit. 

6. It is undisputed that in the criminal case, being Special Case No. 51 of 1984 of the Court of Special Judge, Dhaka Division, there was no trial of the petitioner and, as such, he was not acquitted in the case. The proceeding of the case was rather stopped and the petitioner was released, as trial could not be concluded within the specified period provided by law.

In the circumstances we find no substance in the petition. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Ed.