Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (Vol-1) | Case Reference

Ss. 1-2

Definitions

Whether administrative tribunal can be termed as Court. There are Tribunals with many of the trappings of a Court which nevertheless are not Courts in the strict sense of exercising judicial power. An Administrative Tribunal may act judicially but still remains an Administrative Tribunal as distinguished from a Court. A Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court, but it is not a Court proper. Under Article 117 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 it provides for conferring state's judicial powers on some Tribunals that may in future cumulate some of the attributions which are divided between the formal Court system and the growing practice of adjudication of disputes by tribunals. The Administrative Tribunals are not like the High Court or the Subordinate Court over which the High Court Division exercises both judicial review and superintendence. They are set apart as sui generis, in a separate chapter. The parliament can make more tribunals for matters relating or arising out of sub-clause (a) of Article 117. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111.

Administrative Tribunal is a quasi-judicial Tribunal to which a person injured is affected by any action whatsoever of a public servant while exercising power during the process of service. Through the Administrative Tribunal, the public servant is getting relief and necessary corrections to the executive action are made. Besides departmental action through executive authorities, side by side judicial remedy lies with the prerogative writs, which the Superior Courts are to exercise by virtue of power vested in them to issue. Wb

In the exercise of prerogative writs, the Superior Courts are eventually reduced to the task of construction of the relevant statute and may only interfere either by mandamus where there has been a clear violation of mandatory provision by omission or commission or by certiorari where they find that the statutory act was essentially judicial in nature and not purely executive act. PLD 1961 (SC) 537 5A eifT ()-Insmonsnes tina slaii horde

Tribunals have a special distinguishable position of their own dimension under the proviso of the Constitution. Special matter and question related to are entrusted to the Tribunal for rightful decisions and in that sense those share with the Courts one common characteristic. Both the Court and the Tribunal are constituted and vested with judicial as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. Courts and Administrative Tribunals are performing judicial function and deal with litigation and disputes arising out between the parties which are entrusted to their respective jurisdiction. The procedure followed by the Court is unique and defined through settled procedure in discharging function and in exercising powers they have to conform to their own prescribed procedure. On the other hand, the Tribunal follows a loose procedure as has not been strictly prescribed as that of Court but the approach adopted by both of the institutions are the same and no major difference between the functions of both exists. Judicial functions and judicial powers are the ingredients of suiguris country and both are transformed to the Court established by the Constitution. The basic and fundamental requirement which are common to both Courts and the Tribunals is in the matter of discharging judicial functions and judicial powers which are inherent of a sovereign State. AIR 1965 (SC) 1595.

The object of the constitution of Administrative Tribunal is to provide a forum exclusively limited to service matter relating to the terms and conditions of a civil public servant PLD 1979 (Kar) 610. Where any Administrative Tribunal is set up no Court shall entertain any proceeding or make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal. Md Mansur Ali vs Janata Bank 1991 BLD 23.

It is settled principle of interpretation that an expression used in a constitutional enactment conferring legislative powers must be construed not in any narrow or restricted sense, but in a sense beneficial to the widest possible

amplitude of the powers. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 112. Section 2(b)-The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the

Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111.

Sections 2 and 4-The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, Ist Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 91

Sections 2(aa) and The transferability or non transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104.

Sections 3 and 5-There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or coequal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the Tribunals. Majibar Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111.

Section 4-The transferability or non-transferability of appellants 'service is a condition of the employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the section of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980. The impugned order of transfer is an action taken in relation with the appellants service in the corporation, and any grievance with regard to that could only be agitated before the Administrative Tribunal. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs BHBFC 42 DLR (AD) 104.

Section 4 Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal-An Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by any person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority in respect of the terms and conditions of his service or in respect of any inction taken in relation to him as a person in such service but such an application shall have to be made within six months of the making or taking the impugned order or action Sonali Bank vs Ruhul Amin Khan 1994 BLD (AD) 171.

Section does not provide for any period of limitation for filing departmental Appeals from departmental orders. These are provided for in the relevant service regulations of various statutory authorities. Md Nurul Haq vs Governor Bangladesh Bank 1994 BLD (AD) S.

Section 4 Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in service matter of Government Servants and Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter: Md Habibur Rahman vs AG, Works & WAPDA 1987 BLD 44

Section 4-A terminated officer of the Investment Corporation of Bangladesh can invoke writ jurisdiction directly for striking down any statute or rules framed thereunder for enforcement of his fundamental right, but if he can obtain full relief from the Administrative Tribunal without striking down the statute or rules then the writ petition would be incompetent and as the grounds urged for declaring the regulation 56(2) of the Corporation are grounds connected with two laws, not with fundamental rights, the remedy lies before the Administrative Tribunal. Abul Bashar vs Bangladesh and others / BLC (AD) 77.

Section 4-The transfer being a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, the legality or otherwise of the order of transfer is exclusively triable by the Administrative Tribunal. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Chairman, Labour Court. 41 DLR /I d o

Section 4-Return of plaint in a matter relating to persons in the service of the Republic-Amendment replacing a cause of action, after it had ceased to exist, by a new cause of action so as to change the nature of the suit and the cause of action will not be allowed, and if allowed, cannot relate back to the date of filing the suit. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court having been vested in the Administrative Tribunal by the promulgation of special statute the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Bank employees has been ousted, and in that view of the matter, the plaint was rightly returned by the Civil Court for presentation to the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction. Monsur Ali vs Janata Bank 43 DLR 394.

Section 4 Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal It can strike down an order for violation of natural justice and for infringement of fundamental rights but it cannot strike down any bar or rule on the ground of its constitutionality, Duty of Court is to see the right given under Article 102(1) is not frittered away or misused. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 4 DLR (AD) 111.

Section 4-t is contended that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 has no jurisdiction under section 4(1) to decide the question of transfer and that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution is negatived by the expression "action taken in relation to him as person in the service of Republic which includes the order of transfer as the order of transfer is made in relation to a person of the Republic for which the writ petition fails on the ground of maintainability and the remedy lies before the Administrative Tribunal Shamsul Haque (d) vs Bangladesh, Secretary Ministry of Disaster Management & Relief and others / BLC 93.

Section For legal remedies in service matters civilian employees in Defence Services can well invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal Ishaquddin Ahmed @ Md Ishaquddin Ahmed vs Commandant, School of Armour and Centre, Bogra Cantonment, Bogra and others 51 DLR (AD144.

Section The financial benefit during the period of dismissal cannot be claimed as a matter of right when such dismissal is set aside on the procedural defect as to show cause notice. Sujit Kumar Majumdar vs Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and others 57 DLR (AD) 145.

Section 4-The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents claiming themselves to be government servants and challenged the order directing them to apply for giving appointment afresh. Although the defendant contested the suit but could not prove his case as the prayer for shifting the date of hearing was refused and the suit was decreed and on appeal the appellate Court sent the case on remand to the trial Court giving the defendant a chance to prove his case holding that civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and the High Court Division endorsed the said view in civil revision. Since the petitioner could not get any opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court, it is the trial Court who will decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence and will also consider afresh the issue as to the maintainability of the suit in civil Court because of the plea of bar under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Mohammad Hossain vs Monowara Begum and others 2 BLC (AD) 124

Section 4-If one Branch of the Department of the Government is not following the lawful order of the hierarchy of the Governmental authority, definitely the person who is aperieved can come before this Court and pray for direction or declaration to implement, fulfil or buy the lawn order of the Government which the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to do. Matiur Rahman (Md) v Bangladesh, through the Secretary Ministry of Establishment of the Government of the People's Repuide of Bangladesh & ors 30 DLR 337.

Section 4-As the petitioner's departmental appeal being burred and there being no decision of any higher administrative authority in respect of the impugned order dated 20-5-86, the petitioner's application before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation as well as not maintainable, Abdus Sukkur (M) Chairman National Board of Revenue, Bangladesh and others 2 BLC (AD) 118

Section 4 When the petitioners admitted in their written objection that the principle of natural justice demanded that their appointments should have been regularised, their appointments could not be cancelled unilaterally and in such circumstances the Appellate Tribunal need not have gone into the question as to whether the circular in question was only for executive guidance with no statutory force. Government of Bangladesh, & others vs Md Abdul Malek Miah and others 4 BLC (AD) 221

Section 4-As the matter being one relating to the terms and conditions of service, the jurisdiction of the High Court Division is excluded when the grounds of challenge to the impugned dismissal order were such as were fully cognisable by the Administrative Tribunal. Bangladesh and others vs Mahbubiddin Ahmed 3 BLACK (AD) 45

Section Petitioners have not been given any right under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hafizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147.

Seetion 4-Promotion being part of the terms and conditions of the service a grievance in respect of the same undoubtedly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Junnur Rahman Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha (BSRS) and others 50 DLR 39.

Section 4-Question of payment of subsistence to the government servant during suspension, relates to terms and conditions of service within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Sheikh Abdul Hakim vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 333

Section 4 Unless a final decision is made by higher Administrative Authority after the conclusion of the proceeding under challenge an application cannot be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal, but before such decision to be made by the authority, the right of the petitioner in the service of the Republic and his remuneration cannot be curtailed by the respondent who had no legal authority to do so. Therefore, the departmental proceeding is held to be without any jurisdiction and it must be perished under the wheel of judicial review Shahjahan Howlader (Md) vs Brzlur Rahman & another 32 DLR 358

Section 4-Heirs of Government servant --Not entitled to seek relief-On a comparative study of our and Indian Administrative Tribunals Acts it appears that a person, who is or was in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority specified in the schedule of our Act, has been retired, dismissed, removed or discharged from service, may make an application before the Administrative Tribunal for necessary relief but no person other than the person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority can maintain such application whereas under the Indian Act "a person aggrieved" may maintain any application before the Administrative Tribunal where judicial pronouncement has allowed the heirs of the government servant to file such application treating them as the persons aggrieved. Kazi Shamsunnahar & others vs Commandant PRF Khulna and others 2 BLC 569

Section 4-It is not the inflexible rule that a Government Servant on re instatement in service after setting aside the dismissal from service shall always be allowed the financial benefit for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement. When the conduct of delinquent was found unfair he is not entitled to such benefit. The financial benefit during the period of dismissal cannot be claimed as a matter of right when such dismissal is set aside on technical ground of procedural defect. Sujit Kumar vs Government of Bangladesh 3 MLR (AD) 94.

Section 4-In a departmental enquiry where the charges are established by evidence and the delinquent Government servant is given all reasonable opportunity of defence, the order of dismissal from service cannot be declared void or set aside only on the ground of wrong mention of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1984 since repealed in place of the Rules of 1985 in the order of the dismissal. Since the Government did not lack in authority to impose the penalty and since no prejudice was caused to the delinquent merely because of the bonafide inadvertent wrong noting of the Rules, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be set aside as invalid. Government of Bangladesh vs Montulal Barua 3 MLR (AD) 96.

Section 4 Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal to decide dispute of pension Administrative Tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to pension of the employees of the Republic or statutory bodies and the jurisdiction of all other Courts in such matters are ousted as envisaged by Article 117 of the Constitution. Bangladesh Retired Government Employees Welfare Association and others w Bangladesh represented by the Secretary

Ministry of Finance and others 4 MER (AD) 89 = 5I DLR (AD) 121 Section Scope of interference with the order of dismissal of an officer of

Sonali Bank-Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service on the findings that the inquiry was duly held in accordance with the rules of procedure and the principle of nature justice was not violated and those findings being well reasoned were affirmed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. There is nothing wrong in the findings and decision of the tribunals and as such, the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Abdul Aziz vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank and others 4 MLR (AD) 401.

Section 4-Order passed by the Tribunal is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such order passed by the Tribunal is not executable. AKM Ali Imam vs DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, & another 54 DLR (AD) 5.

Section The Subordinate Judge could have split up the suit for trying the second cause which is for damages for defamatory statement and for implicating the plaintiff in a false case The claim on account of tort committed by the defendant can be tried by the civil Court. Khandkar Abul Hussain vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 467.

Section In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case, Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65.

at Section The authority imparting any punishment upon a delinquent staff has a duty to see that he has been dealt with in accordance with law and following the principles of natural justice. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication vs Abul Khair 56 DLR (AD) 183.

Section For the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner he is aggrieved and for which he wants to seek a remedy to redress the same and certainly on that score this is an action within the meaning of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and as such very much triable before the Administrative Tribunal. Humayun Hafiz (Md), Intelligence Officer vs Bangladesh and others 57 DLR 609.

Section 4–Since the Subordinate Courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court only and the Judges function under the superintendence and control of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court, they are not subject to jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for any matter with respect to their service and other ancillary matters including magistrates performing judicial functions, as they are performing sovereign functions of the State specified under the Constitution. [Appeal allowed in part, see 52 DLR (AD) 82] Masdar Hossain (Md) and 440 others vs Bangladesh, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 2 BLC 444

Section 4- Considering the legal position the Administrative Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General Secretary. Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94.

Section 4-If the eligible person is not considered for promotion, in such case the aggrieved person can enforce his right by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Division as such right cannot be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. M Abu Raihan vs Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology. Bangladesh Secretariat and others 7 BLC 44.

Section 4- Administrative Tribunal is the proper forum as it is the proper fact finding body to go into facts as alleged by the petitioners and grant necessary relief if they were so entitled as the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the law on the basis of which Roads and Railway Division has been created and the posts of the former Railway Division have been abolished by the respondents. Except the assertion by the learned Advocate of malafide action there is no facts averred in all the five writ petitions constituting malafide action leading to passing of the impugned orders. Karimun Nessa and others w Government of Bangladesh and others 9 BLC 342

Section 4- An absentee employee is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. Whether the petitioner suffered physical disability and became unable to attend his duties or he wilfully remained absent from performing his duties are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Sheikh Abdul Hakim vs Bangladesh and others 3 BLC 606

Section 4- Transferability or non transferability being one of the conditions of service of the Republic falls within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution is ousted in such matter. When efficacious remedy is available in competent forum the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Md Tajul Islam vs Governor, Bangladesh Bank and others. I MLR 52

Section 4-Jurisdiction-The Administrative Tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide dispute relating to terms and conditions of service including seniority and promotion. But when such dispute is mixed with the determination of the constitutionality of any notification or rules, it excludes the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. The remedy in such case lies in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Shafiuddin Ahmed and others. 2 MLR (AD) 257 = 50 DLR (AD) 27 = 3 BLC (AD) 6.

Section 4- Where the charge in a departmental proceeding in which the delinquent officer was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement, was framed by the competent authority is a question of fact. When this issue was agitated before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and was decided in reference to the records of the proceedings, there is little scope for interference with such decision by the Appellate Division. Md Anawar Hossain Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others 2 MLR (AD) 382.

Section 4- Dismissal of a person from service of the Republic relates to terms and conditions of his service. His remedy against dismissal from service lies in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division.

Unless a question of deciding the vires of any law or rule is involved, dispute relating to terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic does not attract the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution.

Order of dismissal passed under MLO 9 but not communicated to the person  concerned before repeal of the MLO is not a vat it order and it is of no legat effect. The requirement of law is the communication of the order to the person concerned and not the actual date of receipt thereof by him.

It is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court Division to direct the Government to grant to an employee promotion, seniority, increment and back salaries, etc when no such relief was sought for

When the petitioner contested the election to Parliament accepting the cessation of his relation to the service he cannot now seek for his re-instatement: Law does not permit a person to enjoy double advantages.

Further, when the petitioner lost in the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, his remedy was in the appeal before the Appellate Division and not in writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division, Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Establishment Division and others vs Mahbubuddin Ahmed 3 MLR (AD) 121.

Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-Transfer of a Class II employee from one station to another relates to the terms and conditions of his service. Violation of the terms and conditions of service may be violation of law but this is not violation of any fundamental rights. Transferability of a class III employee being relatable to the terms and conditions of service remedy against such transfer is available in the Administrative Tribunal as provided under Article 117 read with section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Mohammad Faruque 4 MLR (AD) 12 = 51 DLR (AD) 112.

Section 4-Limitation for filing application before the Administrative Tribunal is six months-An application under section 4(1) of the Act has to be filed before the Administrative Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation of six months from the date of making or taking decision by departmental higher authority. When not filed within the statutory period such an application is barred by limitation. Abul Kashem vs The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and others 2 MLR (AD) 51.

Section 4- The Act is prospective in operation and not retrospective as no such intention is expressed in the Act itself. No application lies before the Administrative Tribunal in respect of an order of removal from service made before the Administrative Tribunals Act 1980 came into effect.

Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is not the appellate authority in respect of order of removal passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh vs Abdul Latif Chokder 1 MLR (AD) 393 49 DLR (AD) 29.

Section 4- The applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for any relief unless he had approached the higher administrative authority seeking redressment of his grievance. Similarly, one cannot seek relief by way of enforcement of the order of court passed in a case in which he was not a party. In a case for determining seniority other persons likely to be affected by the order must be made parties to the proceedings, Abdul Kader Patwari vs Bangladesh Bank represented by Governor and others. 2 MLR (AD) 89 = 49 DLR (AD) 47.

Section 4-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Jurisdiction with regard to an employee of the Railway Board-The respondent's petition before the Labour Court relates to terms and conditions of his service-In view of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, the Administrative Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and consequently, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. General Manager, Bangladesh Railway vs Labour Court. 1988 BLD 125.

Section 4 -Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-In domestic enquiry departmental authority is not bound by the findings of Inquiry Officer Negligence of duty constitutes offence of misconduct-The departmental authority is not bound by the findings of the Inquiry officer. It can take different decision on the basis of the materials on record. When negligence of duty falling within the definition of misconduct on the part of the petitioner was well proved the authority was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty of censure and recovery of the loss caused by the delinquent petitioner. Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong in upholding the penalty. Dr Md Lutfur Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 6 MLR (AD) 66.

Section 4- Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 read with Rule 72(a) of Bangladesh Service Rules 1-Provides for entitlement of arrear pay and allowances during wrongful retirement-It is well settled that a Government servant is entitled to all the arrear pay and allowance upon his reinstatement after the wrongful compulsory retirement from service is set aside as provided under Rule 72(a) of the Bangladesh Service Rules I for the whole period as if he was in service during that period. The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal were perfectly justified in granting such benefit to the respondent in exercise of jurisdiction under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1980. Secretary Ministry of Establishment va A Nurunnabi 6 MLR (AD) 81 = 33 DLR (AD) 41.

Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Appellate Tribunal in altering, reducing, setting aside or modifying penalty imposed by domestic tribunal Administrative Appellate Tribunal has all the power to alter, reduce, set aside or modify the penalty imposed by domestic tribunal in an appeal against the decision of Administrative Tribunal. When the appellant was meted out with differential treatment in violation of fundamental rights having been on equal footing with others the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was perfectly justified in interfering with and altering and reducing the penalty of removal of the appellant from service into one of retirement Government of Bangladesh & others vs Mirza Giasuddin 6 MER (AD) 110,

Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals to strike down an illegal order vitiated by violation of the principle of natural justice Constitution of Bangladesh-Article 135-Provides for protection against punishment Article 135 of the Constitution provides for second show cause notice against imposition of penalty of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. When second show cause notice as to proposed penalty is not given that amounts to violation of natural justice by way of denial of constitutional protection rendering the order of dismissal illegal and not sustainable in law which the Administrative Tribunal can well strike down. Director General of Prisons and others vs Md Nasimuddin 6 MLR (AD) 149 = 53 DLR (AD) 30.

Section 4- Claim for higher scale of pay when the incumbent has no requisite qualifications-On merger of company with the Government-owned enterprise/Sangstha employees of the merged company are absorbed in their corresponding equivalent posts. When the incumbent employee was temporarily posted in a higher post having no requisite qualification under conditions of her being not entitled to the pay and privilege of the said post and the incumbent employee having continued to serve there for long time by accepting those conditions she did not acquire any legal or vested right and cannot by reason thereof claim promotion and higher scale of pay attached therewith. Syeda Mazeda Khatun vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha 8 MLR (AD) 202 = 55 DLR (AD) 82.

Section 4- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reduce the punishment-Doctrine of proportionality is non-existent in Bangladesh jurisdiction--In domestic proceedings the authority is competent to impose penalty upon its employee as it considers appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the nature of allegations in the interest of the organisation which is service-oriented. In administrative justice the doctrine of proportionality is non-existent Administrative Tribunal cannot substitute punishment in place of the one imposed by the employer in exercise of the principle of proportionality. Agrm Bank represented by Its Chairman and others w Khondaker Badruddusa, 9 MLR (AD) 281- 56 DLR (AD) 136

Section 4- Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal to interfere with the order of dismissal passed under Martial Law Order 9 of 1982-Person in the service of the Republic dismissed under the Martial Law Order 9 of 1982 was entiled to put his grievance for reconsideration of the order of dismissal by review forum. Here in the instant case the forum constituted after due consideration rejected the review petition of the petitioner. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal upon taking this aspect into consideration together with the inquiry report of a judge of the Supreme Court and other adverse reports regarding his honesty and integrity found the order of dismissal perfectly justified and thereupon dismissed the appeal which the apex Court affirmed and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal as one having no merit. Hare Krishna Das vs Government of Bangladesh and others 1/ MLR (AD) 146.

Sections 4 and 6-Jurisdiction The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal have been established with limited jurisdictions and limited power. The Tribunal gratuitously granting relief acts in excess of its jurisdiction. Quazi Nazrul Islam vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation, 45 DLR (AD) 106

Sections 4 and 6-Law is settled that except on the limited scope a writ petition involving determination of matters relating to term and condition of service of a person in the service of the Republic is not entertainable by the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Khalilur Rahman, ASPSB vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 2005 BLD (AD) 273.

Section 4(1)- Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals to determine proportionality of punishment and to interfere with that imposed by the domestic tribunal-It is well within the jurisdiction as provided under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 that the Administrative Tribunals can see the proportionality or punishment and in appropriate case alter the same from major to minor punishment as warranted by ends of justice in view of the nature of the offence the accused is charged with. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 8 MLR (AD) 131 = 55 DLR (AD) 65

Section 4(1)-The remedy against the orders of transfer lies before the Administrative Tribunal and not under Article 102 of the Constitution. Shamsul Haque (Md) vx Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 62.

Section 4(2)- Period of Limitation is six months. For the purpose of limitation of moving the Administrative Tribunal against the order of punishment the respondent was entitled to avail of the benefit of the date of the memo communicating result of the appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Md Abdul Karim 47 DLR (AD) 146.

Section 4(2)—The Administrative Appellate Tribunal was therefore patently wrong in holding that the limitation could not be counted from 14-9-89 when the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the appellant's application preferred against the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police on 21-10 88. It seems that the Appellate Tribunal being unaware of the aforesaid Ordinances and under some misconception of the provisos above committed error in deciding the point of limitation. Shaikh Mustainal Hoque vs IGP 47 DLR (AD) 157.

Section 4(2)—Time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1985 was to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation Jahangir Kabir vs Bangladesh 48 DLR (AD) 156

Section 4(2)Limitation-Time spent under review proceeding-In a case like the present one where there is no provision for appeal and where under review the President has power to make any order as he deems fit, a Government servant will be entitled to the remedy under rule 23. AKM Nurul Alam vs Bangladesh 46 DLR (AD) 113.

Section 4(2)- Proviso-jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-Such Tribunal can not entertain any application by the aggrieved party unless his appeal before the competent authority is disposed of. This legal bar cannot be overcome unless the appeal pending before the government is disposed of. It is not known why government respondent is shockingly slow in the matter of taking decision in the petitioner's appeal. The Rule upon the government is therefore made absolute with the direction to dispose of the appeal within 30 days. Moulvi Gholam Moula vs Bangladesh 44 DLR 195. Section 4(2) Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal - Tribunal shall have no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within six months of the impugned order. In the instant suit the impugned order was made 4 years earlier than the date of incorporation of the petitioner bank in the schedule of the Act.

Consequently the cause is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That being so, the suit does not come within the mischief of Article 117. DGM Rupali Bank vs Shahjalal 43 DLR 193.

Section 4(2)- Since there is no illegality committed when minor penalty is imposed by the Secretary as designated authority upon a Class I government servant without the approval of the President in a proceeding drawn up calling for major penalty. The Administrative Tribunal cannot interfere with such an order of penalty. Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Malek 2 MLR (AD) 48 = 2 BLC (AD) 73

Sections 4(2) and 6(2)-Although the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was barred by 80 days but as the gradation list published in 1984 showed that the appellant did not get his benefits the seniority as per existing rules and in exercising the Court's jurisdiction under Article 104 of the Constitution to do complete justice the case is remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the gradation list, as a valuable right accrued to the appellant in law and fact should not be lost when the delay in filing the case itself by respondent No.1 remains undecided. Raziul Hasan vs Badiuzzaman Khan and others / BLC (AD) 35.

Section 4(2)—The first proviso to section 4(2) of the Act is attracted when there is a higher administrative authority to take a decision in respect of an order, etc, to be impugned before the Tribunal and until such decision is taken. As the appellants' representations to Inspector General of Police against the impugned notification issued by the Government were not certainly made to a higher administrative authority, they were entitled to file application against the impugned notification straightaway within six months under the second proviso to section 4(2). Abdul Mannan (Md) and others vs Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others / BLC (AD) 44.

Section 4(2)— Invoking the jurisdiction of section 4(2) of the Act it is obligatory for the employee to make his employer, a party to the application or else any decree so drawn will be inexecutable and as the application has to be filed within 6 months from the passing of the Appellate order no amendment could be made after expiry of 6 months as the said Act is a special law. Abdul Naim (Md) vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank and others 1 BLC (AD) 80. Section 4(2)-Proviso-On a reference to Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Rules, 1976, it appears that successive appeals which were filed by the respondent were not addressed to the proper appellate authority and those were also filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application Government of the People's Republie of Bangladesh, represented by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh vs Abdul Latif Chokder 49 DLR (AD) 29,

Section 4(2)-When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegraph, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka vs AKM Yousuf Mia & others 50 DLR (AD) 200

Section 4(2)- When the charges against a Government servant are found established and he is given reasonable opportunity of defence and dismissed with the approval of the President, the omission to express the order in the name of the President being mere technicality, the order of dismissal does not call for interference. Shahimur Alam (Md) vs People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR (AD) 211 = 3 MLR (AD) 20.

Section 4(2)-As the objection for not impleading the Sonali Bank, the employer of the appellant, as party was taken at the first available opportunity by the respondents and not by the Appellate Tribunal itself and such objection was re-agitated before the Appellate Tribunal who found that the application was not maintainable for which the appellant's submission that the plea of defect of party

was taken after 6 years at the appellate stage does not hold good. Abdul Naim vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank, Head Office, Dhaka and others 3 BLC (AD 1 Section 4(2) To seek redress under the Administrative Tribunal Act the  petitioner preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble President which has been pending since 11-1-1996 frustrating any legal remedy that may be available to him for which it is expected that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would place the said appeal before the Hon'ble President within two months from the date of receipt of this order, if already not so placed. Abdur Razzaque Bhuiyan (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Planning Division, and others 2 BLC 369

Section 4(2)- The Rules of the Janata Bank only provide for certain benefits as are admissible to a Government servant. Rule 389 of BSR Part 1 provides that there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer after regaining his health after invalid pension. But the Rule has no legal application to Janata Bank employees. General Manager Janata Bank vs Md Shah Alam Sarker 51 DLR (AD) 138 = 3 MLR (AD) 106. Section 4(2)Section 4(2) of the Act provides that after making of decision by a higher administrative authority under any law for the time being in force a case may be filed by an aggrieved person in the Service of the Republic before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months therefrom.

In the instant case, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 17 of the Rules and, as such, he was required to file the case before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months of the dismissal of his appeal. The case filed beyond the period of 6 months is thus barred by limitation. Md Osman Gani vs Government of Bangladesh 17 BLD (AD) 306.

Section 4(2)- When no illegality is found to have been committed in the inquiry proceedings and the charges of misconduct and corruption against the delinquent Government Servant are established and the penalty of compulsory retirement awarded by the authority on lenient view, the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to take further lenient view to reduce the penalty of compulsory retirement into stoppage of increment or promotion as the same is opposed to the provision of Rule 4(5) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs vs AM Mansur Ahmed and others 3 MLR (AD) 109

Sections 4(2) and 13-Decree of Civil Court having already been executed after the appellant was reinstated in service, his subsequent prayer for other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal. The Tribunals took a wrong view that the other reliefs are ancillary and consequential reliefs emanating from the decree of the Civil Court and wrongly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. Khandaker Golam Najib vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Agrani Bank and others 49 DLR (AD) 109.

Section 4(2)- The representation of respondent having been turned down by the National Board of Revenue, the higher administrative authority in his case, the question of preferring any further appeal does not arise. Government of Bangladesh vs Nurul Haque Miah and another 53 DLR (AD) 59

Section 4(2)-Even if the gradation list has the force of law concerning the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners it would not enable the petitioners to seek remedy under the writ jurisdiction because the Constitution requires them to take recourse to specific remedy as provided in Article 117 of the Constitution before the Administrative Tribunal. Majibur Rahman (Md) and ors vs Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 7 BLC 120.

Section 4(2)- With the invalid retirement, the incumbent ceases to be in the service. The question of re-employment on regaining health and becoming fit to resume the duties is a question of fresh appointment and, as such, it is a matter of discretion of the authority. The refusal of the Janata Bank to reappoint any such officer subsequently after invalid pension, does not constitute any cause of action warranting exercise of jurisdiction by the Administrative Tribunal. Rule 389 BSR Part I does not apply to the Janata Bank Employee. General Manager, Janata Bank w Md Shah Alam Sarker 3 MLR (AD) 105 - 51 DLR (AD) 138.

Section 4(2)- Fresh proceedings under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 after the first one ending on technical ground, When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegraph, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka vs AKM Yousuf Mia and others 2 MLR (AD) 322 = 50 DLR (AD) 200

Section 4(2)—Effect of Non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings-Under section 4(2) of the said Act the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal can be invoked only by a person in the service of the Republic or in the service of a statutory public authority. In other words, his employer is a necessary party. The officers whom the petitioner made opposite parties in his application may be his appointing authority and appellate authority but the petitioner was not in the service of those officers. Section 2(aa) of the said Act defines "statutory public authority" as those which are described in the Schedule to the said Act. In the Schedule Sonali Bank is mentioned as one of the statutory public authorities. The petitioner was in the service of Sonali Bank and his cause of action is against his employer and not against his appointing authority or appellate authority. They are merely functionaries of his employer. He may or may not make his appointing authority or appellate authority a party to the application under section 4(2), but it is obligatory for him to make his employer a party to the application or else any decree in his favour will be inexecutable, his employer not being bound by the decree. The Board of Directors or the Chairman thereof who is entrusted with the duty of administering the Bank can only execute a decree if the Bank is bound by it.

Any application under section 4(2) of the said Act has to be filed within 6 months from the passing of the order in the departmental appeal and after expiry of 6 months no amendment of the application can be made, the said Act being a special law. Mohammad Abdul Naim vs The Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank Head Office and others. I MLR (AD) 706 - BLC (AD) 80

Section 4(2)-When the order of removal of the respondent was passed on approval of the President, it was optional for the respondent to file a review petition to the President for review of the order. Application instituted within the statutory period of limitation without filing any review petition is quite maintainable.

Opinion of the Public Service Commission is not binding upon the authority which can differ with the opinion of the Public Service Commission but in doing so the authority must give reason therefore. Otherwise the contrary decision is not sustainable in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and orhers vs Sved Sakhawat Hossain. 2 MLR (AD) 387

Section 4(2)- First and Second Provisos --Notification by the Government can be challenged straightaway by an aggrieved party before the Administrative Tribunal

The First Proviso of section 4(2) of the Act is attracted when there is a higher administrative authority "under any law for the time being in force" to take a decision in respect of any order or action to be impugned before the tribunal. The impugned notification being made by the Government the appellants' representation to the Inspector General of Police cannot be conceived to have been made to any higher administrative authority and, as such, the appellants are entitled to file application against the impugned notification straightaway to the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months under Second Proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act. Md Abdul Mannan and others vs Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others. 1996 BLD (AD) 147 

Section 4(2)—When any special statute prescribes specific limitation by  express term, sections 5 and 14 of the Act are not applicable. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 in the Second Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act contains clear provision prescribing special limitation for filing application before Tribunal and, as such, the law being a special law with clear legislative intent. No benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act for enlargement of limitation can thus be claimed in respect of filing application before the Tribunal.

It is clear from the wording of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act that the legislative intendment behind this provision is to exclude the proceedings governed by the Administrative Tribunal Act from the operation of the benefit conferred by sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act. Abul Bashar vs Investment Corporation of Bangladesh and another 20 BLD (DJ 294 52 DLR (AD) 178.

Section (2)- Determination of inter se seniority Inter-se seniority of the Bank officers shall have to be maintained as per the panel prepared on set criteria and promotion test notwithstanding the subsequent change of the Service regulations and their promotion on different dates on the availability of the vacant posts in higher position. Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs M Anwarul Haque 10 MLR(AD) 14

Section 4(2)- Scope of interference with the order of dismissal of a Government servant on ground of his conviction Article 135(2) of the Constitution requires an authority to consider the conduct of the Government servant that led to his conviction for criminal charge while passing the dismissal order. Non-consideration of the conduct of the Government servant that led to his conviction by the authority renders the dismissal from service not sustainable in law. Again persons of similar footing shall be treated equally. Discrimination offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 27 of the Constitution. Secretary Ministry of Food and others vs Md Nuruzzaman 10 MLR (AD) 97.

Section 4(2)—Power of the Administrative Tribunal to strike down illegal order of dismissal-A public servant after having completed 25 years of qualifying service in exercise of option under section 9(1) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 can go on retirement with all pensionary benefits, which unless there is any pending departmental proceeding, the authority cannot refuse to allow. Authority is bound to allow him to go on such tirement. Charge in a departmental proceeding calling for major penalty must be specific and communicated to the accused with statement of allegations. Otherwise, the order of dismissal from service in such proceedings which is drawn long after filing application seeking voluntary retirement being malafide is liable to be set aside. Director-cum-Professor, Pabna Mental Hospital and others vs Tossadek Hosain and others 10 MLR (AD) 110.

Section 4(3)- Civilian employees in the Defence Services not being members of any of the Defence Service are holders of civil posts who now have to move the Administrative Tribunal for redress of their grievances and cannot move the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction. Serajul Islam Thakur vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 318.

Section 4(3) -Civilian Employees in the Defence Services-Administrative Tribunal was not correct in holding that they belonged to the defence services.

Against the mistaken orders the petitioners were at liberty to prefer appeals before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Their applications under the writ jurisdiction are not maintainable. Abdul Latif vs Bangladesh 43 DLR 446.

Section 4(3)-- The expression "person in the Defence Services of Bangladesh "Whether includes the petitioners who were employees of the Ordnance Factories Board. Serajul Islam Thakur vs Bangladesh 1993 BLD 53; 46 DLR 318.

Tribunal includes Appellate Tribunal-The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. 44 DLR (AD) 111.

Tribunal not substitute for, nor co-equal to, High Court Division. There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is [a] substitute [for] or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. 44 DLR (AD) 111.

Application by persons of the Bangladesh Rifles.-When the amending Ordinance No. XXIII of 1982 had come into force with retrospective effect from 01-02-1981, the application to the Administrative Tribunal made by persons of the Bangladesh Rifles and pending before it stood abated and to this effect the following provision had been inserted in the said Ordinance of 1982:

Abatement of certain applications.-All applications made by a person of the Bangladesh Rifles and pending before a Tribunal shall, on the commencement of this Ordinance, stand abated."

When order of the Tribunal be not given effect to only then remedy may be sought.-The petitioner had no reason to be aggrieved for re-statement of a settled principle of law in service matter that seniority may be one of the criteria but not the only criterion for promotion-His leave petition was refused on the ground that his claim for being considered for promotion, on the basis of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal's order dated Ist December, 1985, was awaiting implementation, and if the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was not given effect to then the petitioner might seek remedy before the forum created under Administrative Tribunal Act. (VII of 1981). 44 DLR (AD) BSCD, Vol. VI, p. 7

Transferability or non-transferability being a condition of service comes within the purview of section 4. The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. 42 DLR (AD) 104=BSCD, Vol. VII, p. 5=10 BLD (AD) 71

Jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Janata Bank employees vested in the Tribunal.—The jurisdiction of the civil Court having been vested in the Administrative Tribunal by the promulgation of special statute the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Bank employees has been ousted, and in that view of the matter, the plaint was rightly returned by the civil Court for presentation to the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction. 43 DLR 394.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal in case of violation of natural justice and infringement of fundamental rights. The Administrative Tribunal can strike down an order for violation of natural justice and for infringement of fundamental rights but it cannot strike down any bar or rule on the ground of its constitutionality. Duty of court is to see the right given under Article 102(1) is not frittered away or misused. 44 DLR (AD) 111.

No gratuitously granting of relief by Tribunal. --The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal have been established with limited jurisdictions and limited power. The Tribunal gratuitously granting relief acts in excess of its jurisdiction. 45 DLR (AD) 106.

Civilian employees in the defence services come under the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.-Administrative Tribunal was not correct in holding that the civilian employees in the defence services belonged to the defence services. Against the mistaken orders the petitioners were at liberty to prefer appeals before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Their applications under the writ jurisdiction are not maintainable. 43 DLR 446.

For legal remedies in service matters civilian employees in Defence Services can well invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. The terms and conditions of the service of Civilian Employees in Defence Service are governed by the Civilian Employees in Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 and not by the Army. Navy or Air Force Act. Dispute relating to the service the Civilian in Defence Service falls within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals. 51 DLR (AD) 144=3 MLR (AD) 114.

Promotion matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals Promotion being part of the terms and conditions of the service a grievance in respect of the same undoubtedly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 50 DLR 39.

Tribunal is not competent to direct one authority to obey the other. If one Branch of the Department of the Government is not following the lawful order of the hierarchy of the Governmental authority, definitely the person who is aggrieved can come before this Court and pray for direction or declaration to implement, fulfil or obey the lawful order of the Government which the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to do. 50 DLR 357.

Tribunal cannot be moved for implementation of a judgement given in respect of a different person.-Petitioners have not been given any right under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. 49 DLR (AD) 147

Remedy in transfer matter lies before the Tribunal.---The remedy against the orders of transfer lies before the Administrative Tribunal and not under Article 102 of the Constitution. 49 DLR 62. O 12. With first proceeding ended inconclusively, subsequent proceeding not to be interfered with by Tribunal-When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. 50 DLR (AD) 200.

Dismissal order omitting the name of the President not to be interfered with by Tribunal. - Where in a departmental enquiry charges are found established by cogent evidence and the accused officer is dismissed from service after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard and after consultation with the Public Service Commission and with the approval of the President, the order of dismissal is not invalid simply by reason of the order not being expressed in the name of the President as required by rule 5 of the Rules of Business, 1975 which is a mere technicality and such it does not call for any interference, 3 MLR (AD) 20-50 DLR (AD) 211.

Taking a view by the Tribunals that other reliefs are ancillary and consequential to reinstatement in execution of a decree is a failure of exercising jurisdiction. Decree of Civil Court having already been executed after the appellant was reinstated in service, his subsequent prayer for other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal. The Tribunals took a wrong view that the other reliefs are ancillary and consequential reliefs emanating from the decree of the Civil Court and wrongly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. Appellant was reinstated in service in pursuance of a civil court's decree passed before the commencement of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. The subsequent claim for arrear pay and seniority etc. is not a claim arising out of the cause of action of the civil court decree. Such claim arises out of a fresh cause of action after the Administrative Tribunals Act came into force and for that jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal can well be invoked. 2 MLR (AD 20-49 DLR (AD) 109.

Claim of financial benefit during dismissal period may not be considered by Tribunal. There is no inflexible rule that a Government servant reinstated in service after setting aside of dismissal shall in all cases always be allowed financial benefits for the period of dismissal. When the conduct of the delinquent Government servant is found unfair, he cannot be allowed the financial benefits during the period from the date of his dismissal and the date of re-instatent after the dismissal has been set aside on technical ground of procedural defect. 3 MLR (AD) 94=31 DLR (AD) 145.

16. Subsistence allowance during suspension is a matter within Tribunals jurisdiction. Question of payment of subsistence to the government servant during suspension relates to terms and conditions of service within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 52 DLR 333

Before decision by higher administrative authority no application to the Tribunal and no curtailment of service rights and benefits. Unless a final decision is made by higher Administrative Authority after the conclusion of the proceeding under challenge an application cannot be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal, but before such decision to be made by the authority, the right of the petitioner in the service of the Republic and his remuneration cannot be curtailed by the respondent who had no legal authority to do so. Therefore, the departmental proceeding is held to be without any jurisdiction and it must be perished under the wheel of judicial review. 52 DLR 358

Question of transfer to be decided not by Hight Court Division, but by Tribunal.-It is contended that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 has no jurisdiction under section 4(1) to decide the question of transfer and that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution is negatived by the expression "action taken in relation to him as person in the service of Republic” which includes the order of transfer as the order of transfer is made in relation to a person of the Republic for which the writ petition fails on the ground of maintainability and the remedy lies before the Adjinistrative Tribunal. 1 BLC 93.

High Court Division for enforcement of fundamental right and Tribunal for relief in service matter. A terminated officer of the Investment Corporation of Bangladesh can invoke writ jurisdiction directly for striking down any statute or rules framed thereunder for enforcement of his fundamental right, but if he can obtain full relief from the Administrative Tribunal without striking down the statute or rules then the writ petition would be incompetent and as the grounds urged for declaring the Regulation 56(2) of the Corporation [unconstitutional] are grounds connected with two laws, not with fundamental rights, the remedy lies before the Administrative - Tribunal. 1 BLC (AD) 77,

For doing complete justice, case is remanded to the Tribunal.-Although the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was barred by 80 days but as the gradation list published in 1984 showed that the appellant did not get his benefits of the seniority as per existing rules and in exercising the Court's jurisdiction under Article 104 of the Constitution to do complete justice the case is remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the gradation list as a valuable right accrued to the appellant in law and fact should not be lost, when the delay in filing the case itself by respondent No. 1 remains undecided. I BLC (AD) 35

Subordinate Courts are not subject to the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal in service matter. Since the Subordinate Courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court only and the Judges function under the superintendence and control of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court, they are not subject to jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for any matter with respect to their service and other ancillary matters including magistrates performing judicial functions, as they are performing sovereign functions of the State specified under the Constitution 2 BLC 444.

Who can make application to the Tribunal?-According to sub-section (2) only a person in the service of the Republic and of sheduled public authorities may make an application to an Administrative Tribunal. This means that no person other than a person who is in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority and a person who is or has retired, or is dismissed, removed or discharged, can make an application Even their heirs could not make applications. Whereas, according to the Indian Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985, the heirs of the government servants can make applications when the Act says, "... a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal... In this context, our High Court Division in a case observed. The Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application filed by a person who is or who has aot been in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority specified in the Schedule of the Act.

The term "person aggrieved" as used in our Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has narrower connotation than that of the similar term used in the counterpart enactment of the Indian Jurisdiction. The legal heirs of the deceased servant thus cannot maintain an application before the Administrative Tribunal

A person who died while in service cannot be dismissed or discharged or removed from service. Therefore the legal heirs of the deceased servant who are legally entitled to the pensionary benefits can seek their remedies in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division 2 MLR (HC) 83. This was the position before 19 November 1997.

But the legal or statutory position as to whether the heirs of persons in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority as scheduled in our Act has changed since then. The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act No. XXIV of 1997), which received assent of the President on 19 November 1997 has provided for, and inserted by way of amendment to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980, among others, a provision bearing the marginal heading "Death of the applicant" wherein it is said that only the heirs of the applicants before the Tribunal whose services are pensonable shall have the right to sue before the Tribunal. So, it may be observed that our provision in this regard is not so wide and all comprehensive as the Indian one.

Question as to whether a person is a government servant or not to be decided by civil Court, not by Tribunals. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents claiming themselves to be government servants and challenged the order directing them to apply for giving appointment afresh. Although the defendant contested the suit but could not prove his case as the prayer for shifting the date of hearing was refused and the suit was decreed and on appeal the appellate Court sent the case on remand to the trial Court giving the defendant a chance to prove his case holding that civil Court had jurisdiction to try he suit and the High Court Division endorsed the said view in civil revision, Since the petitioner could not get any opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court, it is the trial Court who will decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity io the defendant to adduce evidence and will also consider afresh the issue to the maintainabiley of the suit in civil Court because of the plea of under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 2 BLC () 124. 25. When grounds of challenge cognizable by the Tribunal, jurisdiction of High Court Division excluded. As the matter being one relating to the terms and conditions of service, the jurisdiction of the High Court Division is excluded when the grounds of challenge to the impugned dismissal order were such as were fully cognizable by the Administrative Tribunal. 3 BLC (AD) 45.

Invoking of jurisdiction whether of the High Court Division or of the Tribunal.-If the eligible person is not considered for promotion, in such case the aggrieved person can enforce his right by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Division as such right cannot be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 7 BLC 44.

Remedy as to gradation list though having the force of law lies before the Tribunal.-Even if the gradation list has the force of law concerning the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners it would not enable the petitioners to seek remedy under the writ jurisdiction because the Constitution requires them to take recourse to specific remedy as provided in Article 117 of the Constitution before the Administrative Tribunal. 7 BLC 120.

Jurisdiction of Labour Court and of Administrative Tribunal.- Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Jurisdiction with regard to an employee of the Railway Board - The respondent's petition before the Labour Court relates to terms and conditions of his service - In view of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 the Administrative Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and consequently the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 8 BLD (HCD) 125.

Administrative Tribunal being an exclusive forum does not need the umbrella of writ jurisdiction for implementation of its tecision-Extent of its authority and ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts - The Constitution uses the word Court to mean any Court of law including the Supreme Court. Not to speak of any other Court even the Supreme Court is constitutionally debarred from exercising any jurisdiction over any matter covered by the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal-The Constitution of People's Republic of Bangladesh has designated the Administrative Tribunal as an exclusive forum-The Tribunal does not need the umbrella of this Court's writ jurisdiction for implementation of its decisions, The Administrative Tribunals Act ought to be interpreted in such a manner that it is consistent with the constitutional provision and the legislative intent and that it may provide for a complete and self-sufficient remedy to the affected parties. 10 BLD (HCD) 205-41 DLR 538.

Administrative Tribunal being an effective body and the sole arbiter armed with the fullest jurisdiction to devise its own method and procedure on all questions and problems relating to execution of its decisions and orders. -How the Tribunal will execute its own decisions and orders is very much a matter within the exclusive and unencroachable jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself—The Administrative Tribunal is the sole arbiter of the method and procedure with regard to the execution of its decisions and orders-It will follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of a decree as far as practicable, but as and when it is not practicable to do so, the Tribunal has the fullest jurisdiction to devise its own method and procedure to execute its decisions-The legislature has armed the Tribunal to be an effective body and it need not be told by the writ Court as to the provisions that it may require to apply for execution of its decision--if it is wrong in its decision, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal will correct it--All questions and problems relating to execution will have to be resolved by the Administrative Tribunal or the Administrative Appellate Tribunal within the periphery of the Act and the Rules. 10 BLD (HCD) 205-41 DLR 538.

With the establishment of Administrative Tribunal civil Court vrases to have any jurisdiction to try any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. - When an Administrative Tribunal is set 2 no court shall entertain any proceeding or make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal.

When by a statute an authority is vested in another Tribunal with exclusive power over any subject matter, a civil Court ceases to have any jurisdiction to try such suit having jurisdiction. 11 BLD (HCD) 23

No amendment as to impleading party to an application after expiry of 6 months. In an application filed under section 4(2), the employer of the petitioner in the Sonali Bank is a necessary party without impleading which the proceeding is not maintainable. Such application must be made within 6 months from the passing of the order in departmental appeal. The Act is a special law and as such no amendment application can also be made after expiry of six months. I MLR (AD) 106=1 BLC (AD) 80.

Order passed in the enquiry procedure not be interfered with by the Tribunal.-The limitation in respect of an application under section 4 of the Act commences from the date of communication of the order of penalty or the order of the appellate authority. The settled law is that a departmental proceeding on the self-same allegation against an employee is competent besides a case in the court of law. When there is no lapse in the enquiry procedure, the order passed therein cannot be interfered with merely on technical ground. I MLR (AD) 310.

Question of transferability is within the jurisdiction of

Tribunal.- The question of transferability being one of the terms of service falls within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. When efficacious remedy is available in competent forum the writ jurisdiction of High Court Division is ousted. 1 MLR (HC) 52. 35. Tribunals not to interfere with imposition of minor penalty in a case initiated with a charge for major penalty. -Since there is no illegality committed when minor penalty is imposed by the Secretary as designated authority upon a class I Government servant without the approval of the President in a proceeding drawn up calling for major penalty, the Administrative Tribunal cannot interfere with such an order of penalty, 2 MLR (AD) 48.

Tribunals have no jurisdiction a question of constitutionality of any law.-Administrative Tribungi has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service including seniority and promotion of the person in the service of the Republic. When the dispute involves determination of the constitutionality of any law or any notification the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted. In such a case this mixed question of dispute can well be decided by the High Court Division in its writ jurisdiction under article 102 of the Constitution. 2 MLR (AD) 257

Question of framing charge by competent authority or not is a question of fact, so Appellate Division not to interfere with Tribunal's decision thereon.-Charge in a departmental proceedings was framed upon the direction of the competent authority. Whether or not the charge was framed by the competent authority is a question of fact. When the Administrative Appellate Tribunal decided the said issue on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and in reference to the record of the proceedings, there was practically no reason for the Appellate Division to interfere with such decision. 2 MLR (AD) 382.

Dispute relating to re-employment does not fall within the jurisdiction of Tribunal-As soon as a servant goes on invalid retirement he ceases to be in service. Subsequently on recovery of health his case of re employment is a case of fresh employment which is absolutely in the discretion of the authority. Since re-employment does not relate to any terms of the person in the service, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be invoked in such matter. Rule 389, BSR, Part I does not apply to the employees of the Janata Bank. 3 MLR (AD) 105.

Reduction of minimum penalty not within jurisdiction of Tribunal.-Where in an enquiry charges of corruption and misconduct are established, the minimum penalty prescribed under rule 4(5) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 is compulsory retirement. There is no scope in law to reduce the penalty of compulsory retirement into one of stoppage of increment or promotion: 3 MLR (AD) 109.

Jurisdiction of Tribunal and of High Court Division. The dismissal from service being one of the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic, the remedy related therewith lies in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division

An order of dismissal so long not communicated to the employee concerned is not a valid order. In order to make the order effective, the legal requirement is the communication and not the actual date of receipt of the same. Order of dismissal passed under MLO 9 but communicated after repeal of the M.L.O is not a valid order. When the petitioner lost in the Administrative Tribunal as well as in the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, he could pursue his remedy by preferring appeal before the Appellate Division and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division. When the petitioner contested the election to the Parliament accepting severance of his relation to his service cadre he cannot subsequently seek for his reinstatement in service because law does not permit a person to enjoy double advantages. The High Court Division cannot direct the Government to grant promotion to an employee. 3 MLR (AD) 121.

Exclusive jurisdiction of Tribunals to the exclusion of all other courts.-Administrative Tribunal has been yested with exclusive jurisdiction under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to decide all disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all other courts by article 117 of the Constitution. Remedy against the transfer of a class II! employee from one station to another being relatable to the terms and conditions of service, lies in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution 4 MLR (AD) 12.

Dispute as to pension falls within jurisdiction of Tribunal. Pension is one of the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic or statutory bodies included in the Schedule of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. Administrative Tribunals have been vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide dispute relating to pension with the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all other courts as envisaged by article 117 of the Constitution. 4 MLR (AD) 89.

Opportunity to rectify the defects in the application to the Tribunal be given before rejecting the same.-As provided under rule 3(8) before rejecting an application, the applicant shall be given an opportunity to rectify the defects of the Application. It is true that question of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, but the objection as to the defect of parties must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that the applicant gets an opportunity to meet the objection. In appropriate case differential view may be taken. A person in the service of the Republic while making an application should follow the procedure under article 146 of the Constitution, otherwise he shall run the risk. 4 MLR (AD) 115

An order of dismissal in pursuance of the rules of procedure does not call for interference by Tribunal. When it has been found by the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal that the enquiry into the charge against the petitioner, an officer of Sonali Bank, was held in accordance with the rules of procedure and there was no denial of opportunity of defence and no violation of the principle of natural justice, the order of dismissal of the petitioner passed in pursuance thereof does not call for any interference. 4 MLR (AD) 401.

The Administrative Tribunals Act being a special statute is not subject to the Limitation Act being a general statute.—Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 provides for limitation in express terms for filing application within 6 months. This law being special statute prevails over the Limitation Act. 1908 and as such section 14 does not apply to application under section 4(2) of the Act. 5 MLR (AD) 327.

Jurisdiction of civil Court ousted in service matters. As provided by article 117 of the Constitution, Administrative Tribunals are vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide matters relating to the terms and conditions etc. of the service of the Republic and other services of the statutory bodies included in the Schedule of the Act ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court. In that view of the matter Civil Court has no jurisdiction in such matters. 7 BLD (HCD) 44: il BLD (HCD) 23.

Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief. - The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. 49 DLR (AD) 44

There being no higher administrative authority aggrieved person can go straightway before the Tribunal to redress his grievance. -Notification by the Government can be challenged by an aggrieved party straightway before the Tribunal. The first proviso of Section 4(2) of the Act is attracted when there is a higher administrative authority to take decision in respect of any order or action to be impugned before the tribunal. In the instant case, there being no higher administrative authority to redress their grievance the appellants are entitled to challenge the impugned notification straightway before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 morths under second proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act. 16 BLD (AD) 147.

বাংলাদেশ সমরাস্ত্র কারখানা তফসিলভুক্ত নয় বিধায় ট্রাইব্যুনালের এখতিয়ার বহির্ভূত -১৯৮০ সালের প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনাল আইনের ২ ধারায় ১৯৮৪ সালের সংশােধনীর মাধ্যমে সংজ্ঞা অনুয়ায়ী যে সকল কর্তৃপক্ষ, কর্পোরেশন এবং বিধিবদ্ধ সংস্থার উল্লেখ আছে কেবল সেইগুলির ক্ষেত্রে প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনাল আইনের বিধান প্রযােজ্য। বাংলাদেশ সমরাস্ত্র কারখানা উক্ত তফশীলভূক্ত নয় বিধায় উক্ত কারখানার কর্মচারীদের চাকুরীর শর্ত ভঙ্গের জন্য প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালে মামলা করা চলিবে না মর্মে নিম্ন আদালতে রায় ঘােষিত হয়। একই কারণে আপীল ট্রাইব্যুনাল নিম্ন ট্রাইব্যুনালের রায় বহাল রাখেন। প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯১, পৃ ৩৯; প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯০, পৃ. ৬৫।

(বিশেষ জ্ঞাতব্য : এতদসংক্রান্ত মামলা পরবর্তীতে সুপ্রিম কোর্টে পেশ করা হলে বিপরীত সিদ্ধান্ত ঘােষণা করা হয় যা উপরের ৭নং প্যারায় ইংরেজি রায়ে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। সম্পাদক।]

গুরুদণ্ড পরিবর্তন করিয়া লঘুদণ্ড প্রদান করার এখতিয়ার ট্রাইব্যুনালের নাই। ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহার, উশৃংখল আচরণ, অবাধ্যতা এবং অসদাচরণের অভিযোগে যথাবিধি তদন্ত কার্যপরিচালনা করিয়া কর্তৃপক্ষ প্রার্থী-উত্তরবাদীকে দোষী সাব্যস্ত করিয়া সােনালী ব্যাংক (কর্মচারী) চাকুরি বিধিমালা, ১৯৮১ মােতাবেক ইং ১০-২-৮৫ তাং চাকুরি হইতে বরখাস্ত করা হয়। ট্রাইব্যুনালে চাকুরিচ্যুতির আদেশের বৈধতা চ্যালেঞ্জ করিয়া প্রার্থী মামলা করিলে বিজ্ঞ সদস্য চাকুরি হইতে বরখাস্তের আদেশ পরিবর্তন করিয়া প্রার্থীর বার্ষিক বেতন বৃদ্ধি দুই বৎসরের জন্য স্থগিত রাখিবার লঘু দণ্ড প্রদান করিয়া ইং ২৩-১১-৮৮ তাং মামলাটি নিষ্পত্তি করেন। উক্ত সিদ্ধান্তের অসম্মতিতে প্রতিপক্ষ অত্র আপীল করেন। আপীল মঞ্জুর যরা হয় এবং নিম্ন ট্রাইব্যুনালের রায় ও আদেশ রদরহিত করা হয়।

সিদ্ধান্ত : বৎ প্রসাদ বনাম পুলিশ মহ-পাবদশা w||ঝাল গৎ এ আই আর ১৯৭\0 পাঞ্জাব এবং হরিয়ানা ৮১ মামলা যাহা ভারতীয় সুর্গম কোন স্টেট অব উরিষ্যা গং বনাম বিদ্যাভূষণ মহাপাত্র, এ আই আর, সুপ্রীম কোট ৭৭৯ মামলার নজির এর উপর আস্থা স্থাপন করিয়া অভিমত প্রকাশ করা হয় যে, কিত দণ্ডাদেশ কঠোর সাব্যস্ত পরিবর্তন করিয়া লঘু ৭৫০ পান। মঞ্চ। এশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালে খতিয়ার বশিভূত বিধায় রদরহিতযােগ্য। প্র--জী-ক, ১৯৯০, গ ৫৫।

ক্যাজুয়েল বা নৈমিত্তিক শ্রমিকা সরকারি কর্মচারী নয় বিধায় আবেদনকারীর মামলা ট্রাইব্যুনালে অচল।—প্রার্থী বাংলাদেশ সরকারি মুদণালযে একজন ওয়াৰ চার্জ বা ক্যাজুয়েল শ্রমিক হিসাবে #খ ৬ বৎসর চাকুরি করিয়া আসিতে থাকা অবস্থায় ইং ৩-৪-৮৮ তাং কর্তৃপক্ষ তাকে মৌখিকভাবে। চাকুরিচ্যুত করেন। উক্ত আদেশের বৈধতা চ্যালেঞ্জ করি প্রার্থী প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালে পমলা দায়ের করেন। ট্রাইব্যুনালের বিয়ে সদস্য মামলায় কোনাে কাগবাদপত্র দাখিল না করায় ইং ২৮-১১-৮৯ তা খারিজ  কারেন। অতঃপর প্রার্থী আল াপীল দায়ের করেন। আপীল ডিসমিস করা হয়। সিদ্ধান্ত : প্রার্থী একজন ক্যাজুয়েল দৈনিক শ্রমিক হিসাবে সরকারি মুদ্রণালয়ে কাজ করিতেন বিধায় তিনি সরকারি কর্মচারী হিসাবে গণ্য হইবেন না বিধায় ট্রাইব্যুনালে মামলা অচল। প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯০, প. ২৯।

উচ্চতর কর্তৃপক্ষ আপিল নিষ্পত্তি না করায় উহার উপর উকিল নোটিশ জারি দ্বারা উহার সিদ্ধান্ত pre-empt করা যাইবে না বিধায় আবেদন রক্ষণীয় নয়।—আপীল্যান্টকে আনন্দ মােহন কলেজের ইংরাজির প্রভাষক এর পদ হইতে ময়মনসিংহ টি, টি. কলেজে বদলি করা হয়। উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট তিনি এক আপীল দাখিল করেন কিন্তু উর্থতন কর্তৃপক্ষ বিধি নির্ধারিত সময়সীমার মধ্যে কোনাে সিদ্ধান্ত দেন নাই। অপীল্যান্ট উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষের উপর উকিলের নােটিশ জারি করিয়া প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালে মামলা দায়ের করেন।

সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদত্ত হয় যে যদিও উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষ বিধি নির্ধারিত সময়ের ভিতরে আপীল নিষ্পত্তি করেন নাই তবুও উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষ তাহার সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদান না করা পর্যন্ত আবেদন রক্ষণীয় হইবে না। উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষের উপর নােটিশ জারি দ্বারা উহার সিদ্ধান্ত preemt করা যাইবে না। প্র-অকে, ১৯৮৮, পৃ. ২৫।

সচিব পদে নিয়ােগের ভাইরেকশন প্রদান ট্রাইব্যুনালের এখতিয়ার বহির্ভূত।—আপীল্যান্ট স্বাধীনতা পূর্বকালে বি, আই, ডব্লিউ, টি সংস্থার (পাের্ট এন্ড ট্রাফিক) ডাইরেকটর পদে নিযুক্ত ছিলেন। স্বাধীনতার পরে সরকার তাহাকে ২৬-১২-৭১ তারিখ হইতে ও, এস, ডি পদে নিয়ােগ করিয়া তাহাকে চালনা এনকোরেজের পাের্ট ডাইরেক্টর পদের দায়িত্বে নিযুক্ত করেন। ২১-৩-৭৩ তারিখে তাহাকে উপ-সচিব পদে নিযুক্তি দেওয়া হয়। আপীল্যান্ট সরকারের নিকট তাহাকে ২৬-১২-৭১ তারিখ হইতে যু[সচিব নিয়ােগ করিবার জন্য রিপ্রেজেনটেশন দেন এবং সরকার তাহা প্রত্যাখ্যান করেন। আপীল্যান্ট তখন তাহাকে যুগা-সচিব পদে জ্যেষ্ঠতা প্রদান করিবার এবং তাহাকে সচিব পদে নিয়ােগের জন্য সরকারের প্রতি নির্দেশ প্রদানের প্রার্থনা করেন।

সিদ্ধান্ত প্রদত্ত হয় যে, যে পদে আপীল্যান্ট কোানাে সময়ই নিযুক্ত লাভ করেন নাই সেই পদে তিনি নিযুক্ত রহিয়াছেন এই দাবি বাতুলতা ছাড়া আর কিছু নয়, ও ঐ পদে তাহার জ্যেষ্ঠতা নির্ণয়ের কোনাে প্রশ্ন উঠিতে পারে না। সচিব পদে নিয়ােগের জন্য সরকারের প্রতি কোনাে ডাইরেকশন প্রদান প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালের এখতিয়ার বহির্ভূত। প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৮৮, পূ. ৩।

On limitation matter

Review time to be excluded from limitation period. Time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1985 was to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation. 48 DLR (AD) 156.

Date of Memo communicating the appeal result to be taken advantage of.--- For the purpose of limitation of moving the Administrative Tribunal against the order of punishment the respondent was entitled to avail of the benefit of the date of the Memo communicating result of the appeal. 47 DLR (AD) 145.

Point of limitation would be the date when application preferred against the appellate order rejected. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal was therefore patently wrong in holding that the limitation could not be counted from 14-9-1989 when the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the appellant's application preferred against the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police on 21- 10-1988. It seems that the Appellate Tribunal being unaware of the aforesaid Ordinances and under some misconception of the provisos above committed error in deciding the point of limitation. 47 DLR (AD) 157.

Time spent in preferring appeals to wrong forum not to be considered.-On a reference to Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976, it appears that successive appeals which were not addressed to the proper appellate authority and those were also filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 49 DLR (AD) 29. 

Section 14 of the Limitation Act not entertained by Tribunal. - The petitioner cannot have the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation in filing application before the Administrative Tribunal. 52 DLR (AD) 178.

No amendment in application after expiry of six months.--In invoking the jurisdiction of section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act it is obligatory for the employee to make his employer a party to the application or else any decree so drawn will be inexecutable and as the application has to be filed within 6 months from the passing of the appellate order no amendment could be made after expiry of 6 months as the said Act is a special law. / BLC (AD) 30-1 MER (AD) 106.

With departmental appeal having been barred, application thereon not maintainable before Tribunal.-As the petitioner's departmental appeal being barred and there being no decision of any higher administrative, authority in respect of the impugned order dated 20-5-86, the petitioner's application before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation as well as not maintainable 2 BLC (AD) 118.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings before Tribunal.- Although the petitioner filed various cases before filing the present Tribunal case but section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. 2 BLC (AD) 118.

With application made within time limit, no illegality or wrong committed by the Tribunals.-Considering the legal position the Administrative Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director General. No illegality or wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. 6 BLC (AD) 94.

As to limitation for filing departmental appeals.—The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 does not provide for any period of limitation for filing Departmental Appeals from Departmental orders - These are provided for in the relevant Service Regulations of various Statutory Authorities. 14 BLD (AD) 5.

Application shall have to be made within the limitation period.- An Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by any person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority in respect of the terms and conditions of his service or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a person in such service but such an application shall have to be made within 6 months of the making or taking the impugned order or action. 14 BLD (AD) 17.

Case filed beyond 6 months barred by limitation. After the petitioner's appeal under Rule 17 of the Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was dismissed by the appellate authority he was required to file the case before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months of the disposal of his appeal. Case filed beyond the period of 6 months must be held to be barred by limitation. 17 BLD (AD) 306.

Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act excluded from operation in Tribunal's case. It is clear from the wording of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act that the legislative intendment behind this provision is to exclude the proceedings governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act from the operation of the benefit conferred by sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act. 20 BLD (AD) 294.

Application not filed within six months barred by limitation.-An application under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 shall have to be filed before the Administrative Tribunal within six months from the date of making or taking decision by the departmental higher authority. When not filed within the statutory period, such an application is barred by limitation. 2 MLR (AD) 51.

অপরিপক্কতার দোষে মামলা বারিত।—প্রার্থী জ্যেষ্ঠতা পুনরুদ্ধারের জন্য শিক্ষা সচিবের নিকট আবেদন করেন। উক্ত আবেদন নিষ্পত্তি হয় নাই। এমতাবস্থায় প্রার্থীর মামলা অপরিপক্কতা দোষে অর্থাৎ প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনাল আইনের ৪(২) ধারার ১ম অনুবিধি দ্বারা বারিত বিধায় প্রার্থীর দায়েরী মামলা গ্রহণযােগ্য নহে। প্র—আ-কে, ১৯৯১, পৃ. ৪৭ |

দ্বিতীয় আপিলে ব্যায়িত সময় তামাদি মেয়াদের মধ্যে গণনাযােগ্য।—১৯৮৫ সনের সরকারি কর্মচারী (শৃংখলা ও আপীল) বিধিমালায় ২য় আপীলের কোনাে বিধান নাই। প্রার্থীর ২য় আপীল ব্যায়িত সময় বাদ দিয়া নির্দিষ্ট সময় হিসাব করার কোনাে সুযােগ নাই বিধায় প্রার্থীর মামলা তামাদিতে খারিজ হয় নিম্ন আদালত কর্তৃক। আপীল ট্রাইব্যুনাল উক্ত রায় বহাল রাখিয়া আপীল খারিজ করেন। প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯১, পৃ ২৪।

দ্বিতীয় আপীলের সুযােগ নাই বিধায় প্রথম আপীলের উপর প্রদত্ত সিদ্ধান্তের তারিখ তামাদি মেয়াদ গণনায় গ্রহণ করিতে হইবে।—কোনাে order/decision দ্বারা বিক্ষুর, ব্যক্তি কেবল একবার উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট আপীল করিতে পারে। প্রার্থী তাহার প্রথম আপীল দায়েরের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে উর্ধতন কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট হইতে ১-১-৮৭ ইং তারিখের স্মারকে জবাবগ্রাপ্ত হােন। অতঃপর দ্বিতীয় আপীল দায়েরের পর ২২-৮-৮৮ ইং তারিখের স্মারকে জবাবপ্রাপ্ত হােন। প্রথম আপীল দায়েরের ৬ মাসের মধ্যে আপীল না। করায় মামলা তামাদিতে বারিত হইয়া খারিজ হয়। প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯১, পূ. ৮-প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৮৮, পূ ৩০। 

বিভাগীয় আপিলের পর রিভিউ দরখাস্ত বিধিবহির্ভূত বিধায় রিভিউ বিবেচনাকালীন সময় তামাদি মেয়াদ গণনায় গ্রহণ করিতে হইবে।--পাবলা খালা রেঞ্জে বেঞ্জাৱ পদে কর্মরত থাকাকালীন প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে ইং ৩০-8+৮৫ তাং একটি বিভাগীয় প্রসিডিং চালু করা হয়। তার বিরাদ্ধ এইমমে অভিযােগ আনয়ন করা হয় যে তিনি অবৈধভাবে বন বিভাগের মুল্যবান কাষ্ঠ পাচার করিয়াছেন। মিধিসম্নতভাবে বিভাগীয় মামলার তদন্ত কার্য অনুষ্ঠিত হয় নাই। দ্বিতীয় শােকজ নােটিশ ইস্যু না করিয়াই ক্তপক্ষ ইং ২২-৮-৮৫ তাং চাকুরি হইতে বরখাস্ত বরেন। উল্লিখিত কারণে উদদেশের বিরুদ্ধে প্রার্থী সংশ্লিষ্ট মন্ত্রণালয়ে আপীল কৰিলে তা ইং ২-১১-৮৬ তাং জরাহা হয়। অতঃপর তিনি একটি রিভিউ পিটিশন করেন এবং তা ইং ২৪-১১- r৮ তাং নাকচ করা হয়। শেষ পর্যন্ত ইং ২২-১২৮৯ তাং তর্কিত চাকুরিচ্যুতির আদেশের বৈধতা চ্যালেঞ্জ করিয়া তিনি প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনাল মামলা দায়ের করেন। প্রাথমিক শুনানিতে বিজ্ঞ সদস্য মামলাটি তামাদিতে বারিত সাধ্যপ্ত করিয়া খারিজ করিলে প্রার্থী অত্র আপীল দায়ের করেন। আপীল ডিসমিস হয়।

সিদ্ধান্ত : প্রার্থীর উপর প্রদত্ত দণ্ডাদেশের বিরুদ্ধে দায়েরী বিভাগীয় আপীল ইং ১-১১-৮৪ তাং অগ্রাহ্য হয়। বিভাগীয় আপীলের সিদ্ধান্ত হওয়ার ৬ মাসের মধ্যে প্রার্থী প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালে মামলা দায়ের না করিয়া বিধিবহির্ভুত প্রক্রিয়া গ্রহণ করিয়া আপীলের সিদ্ধান্ত পুনঃবিবেচনার জন্য আবেদন করেন এবং বিধিবহির্ভুত উক্ত আবেদন অগ্রাহ্য করতঃ ইং ২৪-২২-৮৮ তাৎ প্রার্থীকে জানাইয়া দেওয়া হয়। বিধিবহি্ভূতভাবে আবেদনে- নিবেদনে যে কাল ক্ষেপণ করা হইয়াছে তামাদি গণনা হইতে তা বাদ দেওায় যাইবে না। বিভাগীয় আপীল নি্পত্তি হওয়ার ৬ মাসের মধ্যে মামলা দায়ের না করায় মামলাটি তামাদিতে বারিত হইয়াছে। প্র-অ-কে, ১৯৯০, প, ৪৭; প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯০, প, ৪৫ ; প্র-আ-কে, ১৯৯০, প ২১।

সাময়িক বরখাস্তের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীলের বিধান নাই এবং বিভাগীয় মামলা নিষ্পত্তি না করার দরশ প্রার্থী অপীলের সুযােগ পান নাই বিধায় মামলা তামাদিতে বারিত নয়।-- টাংগাইলের নৈশ ডাকঘরে সাবপােষ্ট মাষ্টার হিসাবে কার্যরত থাকাকালীন মকবুল হােসেনের ডাকঘর সঞ্চয় হিসাব নং ৮৬৪৪৩ হইতে বিশ হাজার টাকা আত্মসাৎ করিবার অভিযােগে ইং ৯-১-৮২ তাং প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে ফৌজদারী মামলা রুজু করা হয়, এবং তাহাকে সাময়িকভাবে চাকুরি হইতে বরখাস্ত করা হয়। কর্তৃপক্ষ প্রার্থীকে হেড অফিসে আটকাইয়া রাখিয়া তদীয় স্ত্রীর উপর অবৈধ চাপ সৃষ্টি করিয়া কথিত আত্মসাৎকৃত বিশ হাজার টাকা আদায় করেন। ইং ২৯-১-৮২ তাং প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে অর্থ আত্মসাতের অভিযােগ আনয়ন করতঃ চাকুরি হইতে বহিষ্কারের প্রস্তাব করা হয়। এদিকে তদন্তান্তে দুর্নীতি দমন বিভাগ ফৌজদারী মামলায় ফাইনাল রিপোর্ট দেয়। ৩-৯-৮৪ তাং ফাইনাল রিপাের্ট দাখিলের পর প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে ইং ২৬-৭-৮৪ তাং অর্থ আত্মসাতের অভিযােগে বিভাগীয় কার্যক্রম অর্থাৎ অভিযােগনামা গঠন করা হয়। ইং ১৯-৮-৮৫ তাং প্রার্থী। অভিযােগ অস্বীকার করিয়া আত্মপক্ষ সমর্থনমূলক লিখিত বর্ণনা দেন। কোনাে প্রকার তদন্ত ছাড়াই কর্তৃপক্ষ মামলাটি ঝুলাইয়া রাখেন। প্রার্থী সরকারি কর্মচারী (শৃংখলা ও আপীল) বিধিমালার ৯(৭) বিধির উদ্ধৃতি দিয়া উপরস্থ কর্মকর্তার নিকট অভিযােগ খারিজ করতঃ চাকুরিতে পুনঃবহাল করিবার জন্য বারংবার আবেদন করিয়া কোনাে সাড়া না পাইয়া উকিল নােটিশ দিয়া ইং ৮-৩-৮৭ তাং প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনালে মামলা দায়ের করিয়া চাকুরিতে পুনঃ বহাল করিবার অধিকার দাবি করেন।

প্রতিপক্ষ বর্ণনা দাখিল করিয়া বলেন যে, প্রার্থী অর্থ আত্মসাতের কথা তৎকালীন পােষ্ট অফিস সুপার টাংগাইল এর নিকট লিখিতভাবে স্বীকার করিয়া আত্মসাতকৃত বিশ হাজার টাকা জমা দিবার অংগীকার করেন। ফৌজদারী মামলা আনয়ন ছাড়াও অর্থ আত্মসাতের জন্য প্রার্থী বিরুদ্ধে ইং ২৯-১-৮২ তাং বিভাগীয় প্রসিডিং চালু করা হয়। পুলিশ ফৌজদারী মামলায় ফাইনাল রিপাের্ট দেয় এবং অতঃপর প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে একই তভিযােগে পুনঃবিভাগীয় প্রসিটিং চালু করা হয়। প্রা্থী ইং ১৯-৮৮৫ তাং বন দেয়। হতিমধ্যে তর ী। রাশেনা বেগম প্রতিপক্ষের বিরুদ্ধে এই মমে টাংগাইল সাক-জ কোটে অর্থ भामলা ক কিয়া অভিযােগ করেন যে, অবৈধভাবে তার নিকট হইতে বিশ হাজার টাকা। আদায় করিয়াছেন। আপালত ই ২২--৮৬ তা ডিসমিস হইলে বাদীনী জেলাজজ কোট আপীল করেন। স্থানীয় সরকারি শিশল পানী বিরুদ্ধে আনীত বিভাগীয় প্রসিডিং এর কার্যক্রম আপীল নিষ্পত্তি না হওয়ায় প্রতি বাধ্য হয়।

মামলাটি প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইবুনাল আইনের ৪(২) ধারার প্রথম অনুলিশি অনুষ্ঠিী তাবিত না করিয়া। শরিয়া দেন, কারণ প্রার্থী ইং ৯-১-৮২ তা সাময়িক বরখাতের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে উন অশাসনিক কমকর্তার নিকট কোনা বিভাগীয় আপীল করেন নাই। অতঃপর প্রা্থী অ আপীল দায়ের করেন। আপীল মঞ্জুৰ হয়।

সিদ্ধান্ত : ইং ৯-১-৮২ তাং প্রার্থীকে সাময়িকভাবে চাকুরি হইতে বরখাস্ত করা হয়। ইং ১৯৮৮৯ তা প্রথম অভিযােগনামা গঠন করা হয় এবং একই অভিযােগে ইং ২৬-৭-৮৫ তাং দ্বিতীয় অভিযােগনামা গঠন করা হয়। প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে আনীত অর্থ আত্মসাতের ফৌজদারী মাথায় তদন্ত অন্তে ফাইনাল রিপাের্ট দেওয়া হয়। অন্যায়ভাবে সুদীঘ ৮ বাংলার প্রার্থীর বিরুদ্ধে আনীত বিভাগীয় প্রসিডিং কোনাে প্রকার তনন্ত না করিয়া ফুলাইয়া রাখা হইয়াছে।

(২) সাময়িক বরখাস্তের আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীলের কোনাে বিধান নাই বলিয়া এবং বিভাগীয় মামলা নিশক্তি না করার দরুন প্রার্থী আপীলের কোনাে সুযােগ পান নাই। তিনি স্বীয় পদে পুনঃব্যলের আবেদন করিয়াছেন কিন্তু কর্তৃপক্ষ সাড়া দেন নাই। এই সমস্ত কারণ বিবেচনা করিয়া মামলাটি প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনাল আইনের ৪(২) ধারার প্রথম অনুবিধি দ্বারা বারিত নয়। প্-আ-কে, ১৯৯০, প. ৪১।।

On other matters

Re-employment on regaining health after invalid pension not available to bank employees. — The Rules of the Janata Bank only provide for certain benefits as are admissible to a Government servant. Rule 389 of BSR Part I provides that there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer after regaining his health after invalid pension. But the Rule has no legal application to Janata Bank employees. 51 DLR (AD) 138.

Decision by higher administrative authority on representation amounts to decision on appeal. -The representation of respondent having been turned down by the National Board of Revenue, the higher administrative authority in his case, the question of preferring any further appeal does not arise. 53 DLR (AD) 59.

In the absence of direction for reinstatement, order of declaratory nature by Tribunal not executable.-Order passed by the Tribunal is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such order passed by the Tribunal is not executable 54 DLR (AD) 5.

Plea of defect of party taken at the first available opportunity re-agitated before the Appellate Tribunal. As the objection for not impleading the Sonali Bank, the employer of the appellant, as party was taken at the first available opportunity by the respondents and not by the Appellate Tribunal itself and such objection was re-agitated before the Appellate Tribunal who found that the application was not maintainable for which the appellant's submission that the plea of defect of party was taken after 6 years at the appellate stage does not hold good. 3 BLC (ADI.

Question of physical disability or wilful absence in duties is one of fact and to be decided by Tribunal, not High Court Division. -An absentee employee is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. Whether the petitioner suffered physical disability and became unable to attend his duties or he wilfully remained absent from performing his duties are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 5 BLC 606

Appeal against Comptroller and Auditor General's order lies to the President.--The Administrative Tribunals Act is prospective and not retrospective. It does not apply to the case of removal from service made before the Act came into force. The Comptroller and Auditor General holds constitutional position and as such the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is not the Appellate authority in respect of an order passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I MLR (AD) 393.

Subsequent proceeding not barred and not amounted to double jeopardy.--When the first departmental proceeding ended merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on self-same or fresh additional charge is not barred in law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy. 2 MLR (AD) 322.

Employer is a necessary party to an application before Tribunal.-In an application filed under section 4(2), the employer of the petitioner in the Sonali Bank is a necessary party without impleading which the proceeding is not maintainable. Such an application must be made within 6 months from the passing of the order in departmental appeal. The Administrative Tribunals Act is a special law and as such no amendment application can also be made after expiry of six months. I MLR (AD) 106 = BLC (AD) 80.

None to get relief from an order in a case in which he was not a party-An applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal unless he approached his departmental higher authority and such higher authority has given a decision on the dispute, In a case of seniority, other persons likely to be affected by the decision must be made parties to the proceedings. The applicant cannot seek relief by way of enforcement of an order of the Court in which he was not a party, 2 MLR (AD) 89

Opinion of Public Service Commission though not binding upon Government, but when sought decision contrary thereto without giving reasons not sustainable in law. When order of removal from service is passed on the approval of the President it is optional for the aggrieved Government servant either to file application for review or he can straightway file an application before the Administrative Tribunal within the statutory period of !imitation. Opinion of the Public Service Commission is not binding upon the Government, but when taking a contrary decision the authority must give reasons, otherwise such decision will not be sustainable in law. 2 MLR (AD) 387.

Dismissal not to be set aside merely on wrong noting of the Rules.- Where in a departmental enquiry charges are established by cogent evidence and the penalty of dismissal from service is passed by the competent authority, the dismissal order cannot be set aside merely on the ground of inadvertently wrong noting of the year of the Rules in the order of dismissal. 3 MLR (AD) 96.

Departmental authority not bound by the findings of inquiry officer.-The departmental authority is not bound by the findings of the inquiry officer. It can take different decision on the basis of the materials on record. When negligence of duty falling within the definition of misconduct on the part of the petitioner was well proved, the authority was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty of censure and recovery of the loss caused by the delinquent petitioner. Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong in upholding the penalty, 6 MLR (AD) 66.

Remedy available in the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sought by writ petition. When the petitioner contested the case before the Tribunal and has not preferred any appeal and when he had a remedy before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, writ petition was rightly rejected. 53 DLR (AD) 1/2.

Decision being coram non judice, ie not given by three members, is a nullity, Although hearing may be continued by the two other members if any member is unable to attend any of its sitting, the judgment in the case must be delivered by the three members. Judgment delivered by two members is a nullity being coram non judice: 3 MLR (AD) 201=3 BLC (AD) 155. 

Decision of High Court Division is binding upon Appellate Tribunal.-The High Court Division having held that the decision of the two-member Tribunal was a nullity because the Tribunal was coram non judice, it was clear that the writ jurisdiction of High Court Division was attracted and it was not anymore open for the Appellate Tribunal to pronounce that the judgment of the High Court Division was passed without jurisdiction. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal cannot sit over the judgment of the High Court Division. The High Court Division is vested with constitutional jurisdiction to interpret the law and its judgment is binding upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal as well. 3 MLR (AD) 201 = 3 BLC (AD) 155.

High Court Division is entitled to exercise its power of judicial review of decisions by Appellate Tribunal.- The Appellate Tribunal seems to be totally unaware of the settled law that notwithstanding the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court Division by any legislative provision or even under Article 102 itself, the High Court Division is yet entitled to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 102 if the action complained of before the High Court Division is found to be coram non judice, without jurisdiction or taken malafide. 3 BLC (AD) 155.

Aggrieved person and necessary party. Although there is no guidance in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have got very limited application to a case before the Administrative Tribunal, but still then as a general rule all necessary parties must be impleaded so that the tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it. Since the appellants are claiming relief against the Government alone, the case cannot be held to be bad for defect of parties for nonimpleading respondent Nos. 1-15. But since the order of the Tribunal was likely to prejudice them in the matter of their seniority they are "aggrieved' persons within the meaning of Section 6(2) of the Act. 16 BLD (AD) 147

Section 5 of Limitation Act has no application to the limitation period as provided in this section. Limitation as provided under section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has to be strictly followed. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has no manner of application to the limitation in matters as provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. There is no scope to enlarge the period of limitation and reckon the same from the date of knowledge. The person not party to the proceeding if aggrieved can seek remedy in appropriate forum but not by way of appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. 6 MLR (AD) 173.

Writ jurisdiction in such matter as within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal ousted.-Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 provides for appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and in such matter the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division is clearly ousted as envisaged under article 117 of the Constitution. 6 MLR (AD) 181.

Government not preferring appeal cannot deny the right of appeal to others aggrieved.-Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including those of Order 1 except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to apply to the Tribunal but as a general rule all the necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a Tribunal may effectually adjudicate it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of ASP and it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees for which it cannot be said that the case was bad for defect of parties but the respondent Nos. 1-15 are aggrieved within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act and when the Government did not prefer any appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal the right of appeal cannot be denied to them. I BLC (AD) 44.

Relief has to be claimed against the proper party -As the impugned notification has been issued by the Ministry of Home but it is a notification of the Government and therefore relief has to be claimed against the proper party, namely, Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as Article 146 of the Constitution provides that the Government of Bangladesh may sue or be sued by the name of Bangladesh. But the petitioners before the Tribunal are generally either careless or not properly advised and no emphasis is given on such defect as it was not raised heretofore and as the decision is going to turn on the merit of the case.  BLC (AD) 44.

When the opposite parties admit the relief, the Appellate Tribunal need not go into any other question.—When the petitioners admitted in their written objection that the principle of natural justice demanded that their appointments should have been regularised, their appointments could not be cancelled unilaterally and in such circumstances the Appellate Tribunal need not have gone into the question as to whether the circular in question was only for executive guidance with no statutory force. 4 BLC (AD) 221.

আপীল বিচারাধীন থাকাবস্থায় প্রার্থীকে পুনঃবহাল করার কারণে আপীল অকার্যকর বা অচল গণ্য হইবে না।—আপীলকারীগণ যেহেতু আপীল প্রত্যাহার করেন নাই সেহেতু আপীল বিচারাধীন। থাকা অবস্থায় প্রার্থীকে পুনঃবহাল করার কারণেই আপীল অকার্যকর বা অচল গণ্য হইবে না। প্র-আ-কে, ১৯০৯১, পৃ. ৩৩.

Section 5-Administrative Tribunal whether it can be termed a Court There are tribunals with many of the trappings of a Court which nevertheless are not Courts in the strict sense of exercising judicial power. An Administrative Tribunal may act judicially, but still remain and Administrative Tribunal as distinguished from a Court. Per MH Rahman J, per Mustafa Kamal J (agreeing). The parliament was granted the legislative power to establish one or more Administrative Tribunals, not Courts. Chapter I and Chapter II of Part VI deal with settlement of disputes through Courts. Chapter II with Administrative justice i.e: settlement of disputes though the mechanism of Administrative Tribunals. A Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court, but it is not a Court proper. Mujibar Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 192

Section 5—There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for carrying out of the functions of the Tribunals. Per MH Rahman J, per Mustafa Kamal J (agreeing). The Administrative Tribunal has not stepped into the shoes of the High Court Division and it was not established at the cost of High Court Division, like India. The High Court Division did not lose any thing which was constitutionally of its own. The Administrative Tribunal is not exercising the jurisdictions of the High Court Division as its constitutional successor. It is exercising a jurisdiction of its own in its own right, not by taking away of the High Court's pre-existing jurisdiction by a constitutional amendment, as laid down in the original Constitution itself. It does not possess the power of judicial review at all. It has no powers analogous to Article 102 of the Constitution, Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111.

Section 5- Under the new dispensation that Article 103 of the Constitution shall apply in relation to Administrative Appellate Tribunal the petitioners have only the right to seek leave for appeal. The Court's power under clause 3 of Article 103 is very wide-question of retrospectivity or prospectivity of section 6A of the Act of 1981 has got no relevance. Bangladesh Bank ys Administrative Tribunal 44 DLR (AD) 239.

Section 5- The High Court Division having held that the decision of the two member Tribunal was a nullity because the Tribunal was coram non judice, it was clear that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division was attracted and it was not anymore open for the Appellate Tribunal to pronounce that the judgment of the High Court Division was passed without jurisdiction. Shaheda Khatun vs Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka & ors 3 BLC (AD) 155.

Section 6- Though during the hearing if any member of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is unable to attend any of ils sittings the hearing may be continued with the other two members as provided by section 1A. This does not necessarily mean and imply that the two members of the Appellate Tribunal permitted to deliver the judgment. The terms "hear and determine mean that the decision must be given by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal with all its three members. When judumant is delivered by two of its member it is a judgment of Individuals and the Tribunal being corum non judice. its decision is a nullity.

The High Court Division has constutional jurisdiction under Article 102. The interpretation of law given by the High Court Division binding upon the Tribunal also. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal cannot sit over the judgment of the High Court Division. Such endeavour is lehly deprecated: A warranted by judicial norms Administrative Appellate Tribunal musi follow and abide by the judgment of the High Court Division. Sulla Xhun Administrative Appellate Tribunal und others 3 HAR ADI 20

Sections 6- Law is settled that except on the limited scope a writ petition involving determination of matters relating to tem condition of Service of a person in the service of the Republic is not entertainable by the High Court Division under Article 192 of the Constitution. Khalilur Rahman, ASPS8 w Add Kamrul Ahsan and others 2005 BLD (AD) 273,

Section 6(1) seen from the provision of section 6/1 of the Administrative Tribunal Act that an appeal lies from an ander of the Administrative Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Tribunal refused the prayer for ad-interim order restraining the authority from granting promotion to the respondents. So the respondent Nos. 1-11 berein if were aggrieved by the order so pamed by the Administrative Tribunal they were required as per provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act to file appeal, if any, they would have thought fit. But instead of doing that they were not well advised o file the writ petition seeking the relief identical to the relief sought in tho Administrative Tribunal case with the sole object of having an ad-interim order restraining the authority from taking steps for the promotion of the Assistant Superintendent of Police to the past of Additional Superintendent of Police. Whabibur Ralmar, ASP SB, Dhaka And Kamru. Al 10 BLC (AD) 193

Section 2-Provides for appeal within specified period of limitation The law on limitation as to appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is well settled The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 is a self contained special statute providing for procedure and limitation therein which have superseding effect over all other common laws inconsistent therewith. In that view and also in view of long line of decisions of apex courts section of the Limitation Act, 1908 has no manner of application as to the proceedings under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. There is no room to interpret the provision of sub-section (2A) of section 6 so as to extend the period of limitation or count the same from the date of knowledge of those persons who are affected by the order impugned but not made parties thereto. It is hold that in such a case the person aggrieved may seek relief in some other appropriate forum but not by way of appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal being perfectly in consonance with the relevant law does not suffer from any legal infinity calling for any interference. Md Giasuddin Ahmed and others vs Md Sirajul Islam and others 6 MLR R (AD) 173.

Section 6(2)-Aggrieved person and necessary parties. There appears to be no guidance either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including those of Order I, except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to apply to the Tribunal. But still then as a general rule it cannot be disputed that all necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it.

As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of ASPs and they are seeking relief against the Government alone it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees and, as such, it cannot be said that the case is bad for defect of parties for not impleading respondent Nos. 1-15. Respondent Nos. 1-15 nevertheless, are 'aggrieved persons within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act in that the order of the Tribunal was likely to be prejudicial to them in the matter of seniority. Their right of appeal cannot, therefore, be denied. Md Abdul Mannan and others vs Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others 1996 BZD CAD 127.

Section 6(2)—Appeal against judgment of Administrative Tribunal--- Special limitation Limitation Act 1908-Section 5 has no manner of application—Limitation as provided under section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has to be strictly followed. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 has no manner of application to the limitation in matierials as provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. There is no scope to enlarge the period of limitation and reckon the same from the date of knowledge. The person not party to the proceeding if aggrieved can seek remedy in appropriate forum but not by way of appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Giasuddin Ahmed (Md) and others vs Serajul Islam and others 6 MER (AD) 173.

Section 6(2)-Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including those of Order I except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to apply to the Tribunal but as a general rute all the necessary parties must be implended in a case so that a Tribunal may effectually adjudicate it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of ASP and it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees for Wh which it cannot be said that the case was bad for defect of parties but the respondent Nos. 1-15 are aggrieved within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act and when the Government did not prefer any appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the right of appeal cannot be denied to them. Abdul Mannan (Md) and others v Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others BLC (AD) 44

Section 6(2)-As the impugned notification has been issued by the Ministry of Home but it is a notification of the Government and therefore relief has to be claimed against the proper party, namely, Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as Article 146 of the Constitution provides that the Government of Bangladesh may sue or be sued by the name of Bangladesh. But the petitioners before the Tribunal are generally either careless or not properly advised and no emphasis is given on such defect as it was not raised heretofore and as the decision is going to turn on the merit of the case. Abdul Mannan (Md) and others vs Hasan Mahmud I BLC (AD) 44.

Sections 6(2) and 4(2)-Although the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was barred by 80 days but as the gradation list published in 1984 showed that the appellant did not get his benefits of the seniority as per existing rules and in exercising the Court's jurisdiction under Article 104 of the Constitution to do complete justice the case is remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the gradation list, as a valuable right accrued to the appellant in law and fact should not be lost when the delay in filing the case itself by respondent No.i remains undecided Rasiul Hasan vs Badiuzzaman Khan and others BLC (AD) 35

Section 6(3)-The Administrative Appellate Tribunal took into consideration all aspects of the matter and in view of the provisions of section 6(3) it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for altering the major penalty of dismissal from service to reduction in rank Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others vs Md Idrish Miah 58 DLR (AD) 55

Section 63)-When the petitioners admitted in their written objection that the principle of natural justice demanded that their appointments should have been regularised, their appointments could not be cancelled unilaterally and in such circumstances the Appellate Tribunal need not have gone into the question as to whether the circular in question was only for executive guidance with no statutory force. Government of Bangladesh, & others vs Md Abdul Malek Miah and others 4 BLC (AD) 221.

Section 6(3)-The Administrative Appellate Tribunal took into consideration all aspects of the matter and in view of the provisions of section 6(3) it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to altering the major penalty of dismissal from service to reduction in rank. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others vs Md Idrish Miah 58 DLR (AD) 55.

Section 6A-Under the new dispensation that Article 103 of the Constitution shall apply in relation to Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners have only the right to seek leave for appeal. The Court's power under clause 3 of Article 103 is prospective of section 6A of the Act of 1981 has got relevance. Bangladesh Bank vs Administrative Appellate Tribunal 44 DLR (AD) 239.

Section 6A-The Appellate Tribunal seems to be totally unaware of the settled law that notwithstanding the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court Division by any legislative provision or even under Article 102 itself the High Court Division is yet entitled to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 102 if the action complained of before the High Court Division is found to be coram non judice, without jurisdiction or taken malafide. Shaheda Khatun 3As: Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka & ors 3 BLC (AD) 155.

Section 6A-In the instant case PSC recommended for regularisation of the opposite parties No. 3-86 on 28-1-1998 and thereupon the said opposite parties became the members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Enforcement: Police Cadre) and that being so in law they can only claim seniority in the Cadre Service on and from 28-1-1998 and no other date. Khalilur Rahman (Md) PPM and others vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 8 BLC (AD) 80.

Section 9 One of the general meanings of the word 'obstruct' is to impede, hinder or retard, and in its legal sense of obstructing process under law, it means to commit the punishable offence of intentionally hindering the officers of the law in the execution of their duties. Mere obstruction, therefore, does not carry the meaning or any idea of use of force. Nazim vs State AIR 1957 (All) 829).

Section 9-The word 'obstruction' in section 186 connotes some overt act in the nature of violence or show of violence. It cannot be said that man obstructs another if that man runs away from arrest, or if he does not actually submit to the arrest. Phudhki vs State 1955 CWN 278.

Section 9-The word "obstruction" in section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has to be construed in its narrow sense so as to confine it to an act of physical obstacle, use of force or threatened use of force, a deliberate hurdle preventing an officer from exercising function of discharging duties, and it would not include mere failure to submit an information or to produce books of account. Masco Private Ltd vs ESI Corporation (1975) I. LLJ 29.

Sections 10 and 12—Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12—Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No, SRO 92-L/82-JIV/IT-3/81 dated 12- 3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538.

Section 10A-Orders given by Administrative Appellate Tribunal Maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of such order. The Administrative Tribunal can execute, functioning as an executing Court, its own decisions or orders and also the decisions and orders of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal following the provisions of Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of a decree. The petitioner has been given a further remedy by way of punishment for contempt of the Tribunal's authority. The petitioner having failed to exhaust such remedies his writ petition is not maintainable. Munshi Mozammet Hossain w Post Master, Faridpur 43 DLR 415

Section 10A- To remove the irregularities and to institute a fresh inquiry against the petitioner on the self-same charges the Government action suspending the petitioner from the date of dismissal is fully covered by the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Rules 1985 and the respondents have not acted in wilful and contemptuous disregard of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal Jane Alam Khan vs Abdul Hamid Chowdhury and anr 3 BLC (AD) 55.

Section 10A-The well established principle is that the Court shall not impose a sentence for contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. Mahbubor Rahman Sikdar vs Mujihor Rahman Sikdar 35 DLR (AD) 203

Executive arm of the Government should not be allowed to attack and deface the honour, majesty and independence of the judicial organ of the State. Abdul Karim Sarker vs State 38 DLR (AD) 188.

When dignity and authority of the Court is trampled and transgressed, Court cannot be a silent spectator to this state of affairs. Tahera Nargis vs DIG of Prisons Dhaka 41 DLR 508. LR 508 Person circulating and publishing contemptuous matters is guilty of contempt. State vs Lakitullah. 10 DLR 309

Scandalisation of Judges that they acquired property by improper means constitute gross contempt of Court. State vs Eras Mahmood 23 DER (Lah.) 41. Filing a suit containing contemptuous allegations against a Judge constitutes contempt of Court. State vs Abdul Mazid Munshi 33 DLR 220.

Lawyer's responsibility who are an integral part of the Court to uphold the dignity and prestige of the Court. State vs Abdul Majid Munshi 33 DLR 220.

Plaint which contained scandalous allegations against the District and Session Judge and filing of that suit as well as the appeal against the judgment in that suit, all constitute contempt of Court. State vs Abdul Majid Munshi 33 DLR 220.

There is never any risk of judicial hypersensitivity. The very nature of the judicial function makes judges sympathetic and responsive. Their very training blesses them with insensitivity, as opposed to hypersensitivity. Judges are always seeking good reasons to explain wrong conduct. They know there are always two sides to a coin. They neither give nor take offence because they deal with persona and situations impersonally, though with understanding. Judges more than others realise the foibles, the frustrations, the under-currents and the tensions of litigant and litigation. But as elsewhere, lines have to be drawn. The strains and mortification of litigation cannot be allowed to lead litigants to tarnish, terrorise and destroy the system of administration of justice by vilification of judges. It is not that judges need be protected: Judges may well take care of themselves. It is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that has to be protected. Abdul Karim vs State 38 DLR (AD) 188.

The Courts in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of contempt will not be unduly touchy or sensitive to punish even technical or trifling interferences, But whenever it appears to a Court, probable that the offending publication will substantially interfere with a fair trial, it becomes its duty to protect litigants resorting to Courts from being prejudiced in the trial of their cases by anything which savours of a trial by newspapers instead of by the legal Tribunals of the country. Sadat Khaily vs State 15 DLR (SC) 81.

Executive arm of the government will not be allowed to attack and deface the honour, dignity, majesty and independence of the judicial organ of the state, Abdul Karim Sarkar vs State 38 DLR (AD) 188.

The confidence in Courts of justice which the public possess must in no way be tarnished, diminished or be wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The essence of contempt is in action or inaction amounting to an interference with or to obstruct due administration of justice, Moazzem Hossain vs State 35 DLR (AD) 290

In a contempt proceeding which is quasi-criminal in nature, the contemner is entitled to benefit of doubt and since the Court is both prosecutor and judge. rule as to proof of guilt of the contemner must be strictly observed. Moazzem Hossain vs State, 35 DLR (AD) 290.

In considering whether the apology should be accepted or not, the following acts should be taken into consideration: r

(i) As to whether the appellant appreciated that his act was within the mischief of contempt

(ii) Whether he regretted it:

(it) Whether his regret was sincere; (iv) Whether it was accompanied with expression of the resolution never to repeat again, and () Whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court. Abdul Karim Sarker vs State 38 DLR CAD 188

A lawyer is expected at all times to maintain the dignity of the Court regardless of the shortcomings of the individual presiding over the Court, for it is not his personal dignity but the dignity of his office which has in the public interest to be respected. S. Gideon w State PLD 1963 (SC) 1.

Where an Advocate stood up in Court and shouted "it is nonsense such words uttered by the Advocate were not only disrespectful but also insolent and amounted to a personal insult to the Court in its face. Therefore, they clearly constituted a contempt and unless uttered by an insane person can never be excused. G S Gideon vs State, PLD 1963 (SC) 1.

Case-Law (Indian)

It is necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression contempt of Court may seem to suggest, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. Advocate General State of Bihar vs Messrs Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, 1980 (3) SCC 311, 357

Judiciary is the bed-rock and hand-maiden of democracy. If people would lose faith in justice imparted by the highest Court of State the entire democratic set-up would crumble down. It is the duty of the press to uphold the dignity and majesty of the seat of justice and not to try to vilify and contaminate the imparting of justice by suggesting methods to the litigants which are based on dishonesty, unfairness and favouritism done by the judges, Mohammad Amin viN Om Prakash Bansal 1982 CHLI 322 335 (Raj)

-If any party to the proceedings considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the law or its application, resort must be had to such review or appeals as the law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly administration and civil government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position as regards private parties, the duty to obey is all the more imperative in the case of Government authorities, otherwise there would be a conflict between one branch of the state polity, viz, the executive and another branch, the Judiciary. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. The proceedings for contempt of Court cannot be used as a lever to obtain a relief in accordance with the decree from the judgment-debtor These proceedings have to be resorted to uphold the dignity, of the Court. Prakash Chand vs SS Grewal 1975 Cr LJ 679, 684, 685 (P&H).

-Apology if any, must be to the satisfaction of the Court, and must be made bonafide. An apology tendered must not convey the impression that when the contemner sees that the Court is going to hold him guilty, he then offers an apology. An apology to be accepted, must be offered right at the start of the proceedings. The apology must be one coming from a sincere heart and not as a matter of mere formality. 1975 CLJ 1766 1769 (MP)

A serious note is to be taken of a disrespectful or disdainful attitude of a person bound by the decree or order with a view to uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the Courts of law and justice. The refusal or failure of the Government or its servants concerned to take any action to reinstate a decree holder, who has obtained a declaration in his favour to the effect that the order of his dismissal was void, illegal and of no effect and to giant him all the benefits and privileges of his service following from that declaration, will have to be judged in the light of the observations made above in order to find out whether the person complained against has committed an offence of contempt of Court or mot. Prakash Chand vs SS Grewal, 1975, CrLJ 679, 686 (P&H)

In the matter of prohibitory order it is well-settled that it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted in order to justify committal for breach of such an order provided it is proved that the person complained against had notice of the order. Hoshiar Singh Gurbachan Singh. AIR 1968 (SC) 1348, 1986 CILJ 1514

It is well-settled that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and such an order can be ignored with impunity. The fundamental principle is, that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.

Where the order of which contempt is alleged to have been committed was without jurisdiction, the contemners did not commit any contempt when they ignored the order, D. Viveranada Atmaram Chitale w Vidya Vardhini Sabha 1985. CHLJ 359, 366, 367 (Bombay)

A contempt proceeding cannot be used by a party to enforce a disputed claim. The determining factor is not the harm done to the individual but the harm done to the future administration of justice. Ashish Kumar Ghosh vs Union of India 1985 Cru (Cal). 87.

The apologies tendered on behalf of the respondent are of no avail as the same was done half-heartedly at the last moment, with the hope that the contemners be excused of any act of violation, if found guilty of the acts complained. Lakshmi Narayan Datta vs Mira Rani. 1984 CrLJ 1035.

Once a case is decided, it is the bounden duty of the State and its subordinate to implement, with the utmost expedition, the said decision. In a Government which is ruled by law, there must be complete awareness to carry out faithfully and honestly the decisions rendered by Courts of law after effective adjudication. Then only will private individuals, organisations and institutions learn to respect the decisions of Courts. In the absence of such attitude on the part of all concerned, chaotic conditions might arise and the functions assigned to the Courts of law under the Constitution might be rendered a futile exercise. It requires to be emphasised, in this connection that mere preferment of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decision under appeal and that till an application for stay is moved and granted by the appellate Court or in the alternative, the Court which rendered the decision is moved and grants an interim stay of the decision pending the preferment of an appeal and grant of stay by the appellate Court, the decision continues to be operative. Indeed, non-compliance with the decision on the mere ground that an appeal is contemplated to be preferred or is actually preferred, and that, therefore, the matter is sub-judice. may amount to contempt of Court punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971. Baradakanta Mishra vs Bhimsen Dixit. AIR 1972 (SC) 2466. 

It is not sufficient in cases for the purpose of visiting a judicial officer with the penal consequences of proceedings in contempt simply because he committed an error of judgment or the order passed by him is in excess of authority vested in him. SS Roy vs State of Orissa, AIR (SC) 190.