Sonali Bank Limited Vs. Md. Abdul Aziz and another

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1796 of 2008

Judge: Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: M. A. Sobhan,Md. Ferozur Rahman,,

Citation: VI ADC (2009) 541

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Sonali Bank Limited

Respondent: Md. Abdul Aziz and another

Subject: Administrative Law,

Delivery Date: 2009-3-24

Sonali Bank Limited

Vs.

Md. Abdul Aziz and another, 2009,

VI ADC (2009) 541

 

 

Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J
Md. Joynul Abedin J
Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J
 
Sonali Bank Limited represent­ed by its Managing Director & another....Petitioners

Vs.

Md. Abdul Aziz and another………………………….........Respondents
 
Judgment
March 24, 2009.
 
The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980
Section 4(2), 6(2)

The Sonali bank (Employees) Service Regulations, 1981
The departmental proceeding of the Bank being held in violation of the provision of the Service Regulations of the Sonali Bank cannot be treated as legal or valid inasmuch as the respondent employee in the instant case has been denied his right to raise any objection against the appointment of the inquiry officer, and that the show cause notice as framed and issued and the appointment of inquiry officer as made, were not in accordance  with the provisions of Regulation Nos. 11 and 13 of the Service Regulations of the Bank and that the bank could not place any material, either before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, to show that the appointment of the inquiry officer was made following the provisions of Regulation-13 of the Service Regulations, 1981 and thus there was violation of the Regulations as to the issuance of the show cause notice and the appointment of inquiry officer. Accordingly the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal below, being in accordance with law, do not call for any   interference.
 
Lawyers Involved:
M. A. Sobhan, Advocate, instructed by Nurul Islam Bhuiyan, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Md. Ferozur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.1.
Not represented-Respondent No. 2.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1796 of 2008.
(From the judgment and order dated of 17.06.2008 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in A.A.T. Appeal No.13 of 2002.
 
Judgment:
                 Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J:  This application for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2008 passed in Appeal No.13 of 2002 by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment and order dated 26.01.2002 passed in Administrative Tribunal Case No.91 of 1997 by the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of dis­posal of the leave petition are that the respondent hereof was appointed as a Probationer Officer of the petitioner-Sonali Bank on 02.02.1986 and his serv­ice was confirmed with effect from 18.12.1988 in view of his satisfactory service rendered and he was also award­ed monitory benefit while he was serv­ing in Dighinala Branch at Khagrachori and that he was charge sheeted for mis­appropriation of money on the basis of preliminary inquiry and accordingly he was asked to show cause under Regulation No. 28 of the Sonali Bank (Employees) Regulations, 1981 vide memo dated 31.01.1995, naming the inquiry officer in the said show cause notice, and thereafter the inquiry was held ex-parte without providing any opportunity to the respondent hereof to defend himself and to adduce witness and a report was submitted on 08.08.1995 and he being found guilty of the alleged misappropriation he was served with a second show cause notice : dated 20.11.1995 under the provisions of Regulation No. 28 (1) (b) of the said Regulations, 1981, mentioning that pre­liminary decision was taken for his dis­missal from service as punishment, to which the respondent replied on 07.12.1995 but the said reply having been found to be not satisfactory, the respondent was dismissed from service vide Memo dated 18.06.1996 and that the respondent submitted an appeal dated 30.06.1996 for his reinstatement exonerating him from the charges, which was found to be not acceptable and the Bank authority upheld the deci­sion of dismissal of the respondent from service and communicated the decision vide Memo dated 07.12.1996.

3. Thereafter the respondent filed Administrative Tribunal, Case No. 91 of 1997 before the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka, under Section-4 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, which, on contest, was allowed declar­ing that the orders of dismissal as well as rejection of the appeal for reinstatement are illegal, void, without jurisdic­tion and of no legal effect and further direction was given for reinstatement of the respondent in his service with all arrear salary and other allowances as admissible under the law. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with said judgment and order the Sonali Bank, as appellant, preferred A. A. T. Appeal No.13 of 2002 under Section 6 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, which was heard and disposed of on contest by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.06.2008 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment  and  order  passed  by  the Tribunal below observing, amongst others,  that the inquiry officer was no appointed  as  per  the  provisions  of Regulation No. 28 (13) of the Sonali Bank (Employees) Service Regulations, 1981 and there was violation of provi­sions of Regulations 11 and 13 of said Regulations, 1981, which according to the Appellate Tribunal are mandatory, and thus arrived at its decision for dis­missing the   appeal and that  being aggrieved by  said   decision of  the Appellate Tribunal  the  instant leave petition has been filed.

4.  The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Bank submitted that the appointment of the inquiry officer in ref­erence was  in fact informed to the respondent, naming in the show cause notice, and that the inquiry officer was appointed earlier and that the mentioning of the name of the inquiry officer in the show cause notice may be an irregu­larity but can not be said to be an illegal­ity inasmuch as the respondent employ­ee was given all opportunity to defend himself in accordance with provisions of the Sonali Bank (Employees) Service Regulations, 1981, and that the allega­tion of the defalcation as mentioned has been duly proved in accordance with law and thereby the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal of the Bank, is an error on the face of the record, which is due to mis­reading and misinterpretation of the rel­evant  provisions  of the Service Regulations.

5. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the departmental proceeding of the Bank being held in violation of the provision of the Service Regulations of the Sonali Bank cannot be treated as legal or valid inasmuch as the respondent employee in the instant case has been denied his right to raise any objection against the appointment of the inquiry officer, and that the show cause notice as framed and issued and the appointment of inquiry officer as made, were not in accordance with the provisions of Regulation Nos. 11 and 13 of the Service Regulations of the Bank and that the Bank could not place any material, either before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, to show that the appointment of the inquiry officer was made following the provi­sions of Regulation- 13 of the Service Regulations, 1981 and thus there was violation of the Regulations as to the issuance of the show cause notice and the appointment of inquiry officer. Accordingly the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal below, being in accordance with law, do not call for any interference.

6. We have perused the impugned judg­ment and order of the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the relevant pro­visions of the relevant service Regulations namely Regulation No.28 of the Sonali Bank (Employees) Service Regulation, 1981 and also considered the Submission of the learned advo­cates. It appears that the Bank did not produce any paper to show that the appointment of the inquiry officer was made as per Regulation No.13 of the Service Regulations, 1981 and thus the Regulation relating to the appointment of the inquiry officer has been violated and hence the departmental proceeding was not in order. The Appellate Tribunal appears to have discussed the materials on record and the impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law. Thus we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner bank and therefore the application do not merit any consideration.

Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Ed.