Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 678 of 1994
Judge: Latifur Rahman ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Md. Serajul Haque,,
Citation: 51 DLR (AD) (1999) 145
Case Year: 1999
Appellant: Sujit Kumar Majumdar
Respondent: Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
Subject: Administrative Law,
Delivery Date: 1997-6-26
Sujit Kumar Majumdar
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 1999,
51 DLR (AD) (1999) 145
ATM Afzal CJ
Mustafa Kamal J
Latifur Rahman J
Md. Abdur Rouf J
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J
Sujit Kumar Majumdar…………………………. Appellant
June 26, 1997.
The petitioner can not claim financial benefit as a matter of right for the period of dismissal after reinstatement as per order of the Tribunal the petitioners conduct not being found proper during the period of service prior to dismissal…………………………(3)
Md. Serajul Haq, Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record — For the Appellant.
Not represented—The Respondents.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 678 of 1994.
(From the Judgment and order dated August 7, 1994 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 58 of 1993).
2. This petition for leave to appeal is against the refusal of both the tribunals below to grant financial benefits to the petitioner while reinstating him in service and refusal to grant pay and financial benefits for the period from the date of his dismissal from service to the date of reinstatement in service.
3. From the judgment of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal it appears that the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was set aside as a major penalty of dismissal was imposed without giving any second show cause notice to the petitioner. Consequently, he was reinstated in service but the financial benefits were not granted as the conduct of the petitioner was unfair as without prior permission of the authority the petitioner remained absent from his duty and further he could not substantiate by producing any material evidence that he was suffering from serious illness. In the facts of the present case although the tribunals below reinstated the petitioner in service, yet they thought it fit and proper not to allow him any financial benefits as his conduct was unfair. Further, the petitioner also cannot claim the financial benefit as a matter of right. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment.
The petition is dismissed.