Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
The administrative Tribunal by its
afore- said order set aside the order dismissing the departmental appeal of the
Respondent No.1 and thereupon restored the previous pay scale of the Respondent
and That also passed order for the payment of pension .gratuity and other
benefits (2) Government of the People's vs. Md. Atiar Rahman Mollah (Md. Ruhul
Amin J) (Civil) 5 ADC 422
The Government Servants Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1985
Section 3(a) and 3(b)
That admittedly the judgment of the
Administrative Tribunal was passed on 28.01.2003 and certified copy was
delivered on 01.02.2003 and therefore the appellant was entitled to get period
of three months plus four days to prefer the appeal and under Sub-section (2A)
of Section 6 an appeal could be admitted if filed not later than six months, in
case of sufficient cause explained for the delay.
The appeal appears to have been filed
on 07.08.2003 ie. it was delayed by more than seven months. Normally an appeal
is to be filed within three months under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the
Act. On showing sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the
afore- said period of three months, under the provision of Sub-section (2A) of
the Act, an appeal however could be admit- ted if filed not later than six
months from the date of order or decision com- plained of. Bangladesh vs. Md.
Abdur Razzak and others (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Civil) 4ADC 224
Any error apparent on the face of the
judgment sought to be reviewed passed by this Division nor the petition for
review has been filed upon discovery of new fact. Kazi Muhammad Khokon vs.
Deputy Secretary (Registration) Ministry of Law (Md. Ruhul Amin 1) (Civil) 4ADC
227
Rule 3(b), 4(3)
1985 Rules do not also, in the circum-
stances of the instant case, appear to have put any legal embargo upon the
taking of any second disciplinary pro- ceeding on fresh ground in addition to
the grounds already taken in the first proceeding, which ended not on merit but
on mere technicality. The Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that in the
absence of any legal bar either by express provision or upon necessary
implication under any law or rules, initi- ation of a second proceeding when
the first one ended on a mere technicality owing to efflux of time, without any
fault on the part of the punishing author- ity, is fully maintainable.
Bangladesh vs A.K.M. Yousuf Mia (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J(Civil) 2ADC 520
There was no lack of authority and
power on the part of the Government to take action against the respondent and
hence wrong quoting of he Rules of 1984 in place of the Rules of 1985 is
immaterial. This is a bonafide. Bangladesh vs Montu Lal Barua (Latifur Rahman
J)(Civil) 2ADC 579
Rule 3(6)
The respondent was under the impression that his leave petition would be al- lowed and no exception would be taken for his absence for those days. General Manager, Postal Insurance Eastern Region vs. A.B.M. Abu Taher (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 6 ADC
Rule 3(b), 4(3)
Rules do not also, in the circum-
stances of the instant case, appear to have put any legal embargo upon the
taking of any second disciplinary proceeding on fresh ground in addition to the
grounds already taken in the first proceeding, which ended not on merit but on
mere technicality. The Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that in the
absence of any legal bar either by express provision or upon necessary
implication under any law or rules, initi- ation of a second proceeding when
the first one ended on a mere technicality owing to efflux of time, without any
fault on the part of the punishing authority, is fully maintainable.
Bangladesh vs A.K.M. Yousuf Mia (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J)(Civil) 2ADC 520
Rule 3(d)111, 7 (1) (b) (2) (c)
Respondent was dismissed from service
on the ground that he has a persistent reputation of being corrupt but as it
appears in the charge there is no particulars in this regard and further there
is nothing in the record to show that an statement of allegations containing
particulars in this regard were sent to the respondent along with the charge to
enable the respondent to refute that. Bangladesh &ors. vs Sheikh Munsur
Rahman (Md. Tafazzul Islam J)(Civil) IADC 562
The authority imposing 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. B.M.P.T.T
& Others vs Miic Abul Khair (Civil) IADC 165
Rule 4, (2) (3), Rule 25
Establishment but the words "by
order of the President" were used to comply with the constitutional
formalities as laid down in the then Article 56 (3) of the Constitution. He
means to say that the order of dismissal was not passed "by the President'
and therefore the remedy of appeal was available to him under the 1985 Rules.
Bangladesh vs Md. Golam Rahaman Mallick (Mustafa Kamal 1)(Civil) 3ADC 624
There was no lack of authority and
power on the part of the Government to take action against the respondent and
hence wrong quoting of he Rules of 1984 in place of the Rules of 1985 is
immaterial. This is a bonafide. Bangladesh vs Montu Lal Barua (Latifur Rahman
J)(Civil) 2ADC 579
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 7(5), 10- The petitioner has been dismissed without getting any opportunity of being heard, which is an absolute violation of the principle of natural justice- The respondents-opposite parties failed to follow the procedures provided in the Rules, 1985 accordingly. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard. The inquiry proceeding was held ex-parte, which was not in accordance with law. At the same time the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to produce evidence in his favour according to Rule 10 of the Rules, 1985.
We are of the view that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal committed a serious error of law in not considering the provisions of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 in toto and the principles of natural justice properly. The petition is disposed of The judgment and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is hereby set aside. Syedul Abrar (Md.) -VS- Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, BD, [10 LM (AD) 301]
Rule 7(2)
It is true that in the 1976 Rules there
is no punishment called "discharge from service" in the case of
permanent Government officials. The impugned order of discharge was technically
flawed in this respect but it will not fall through on that account, it being
clear from a perusal of the order impugned in the suit, Ext. 6(a), that the
authority in fact intended to remove him from serv- ice for unauthorized
absence from duty. Superintending Engineer vs Kazi Asaduzzaman (Mustafa Kamal
J)(Civil) 2ADC 680
For a declaration that the order dated
11.8.1984 removing him from service is illegal, void etc. and that he is still
in service as Rural Development Officer, Savar Upazila Central Co-operative
Association upon averments, inter. Bangladesh Rural Development Board and
others vs Md. Idris Ali Akond and oth- ers (A.T.M.Afzal CJ) (Civil) 3ADC 787
Government Servants (Special
Provisions) Ordinance, 1979 (Ordinance XI of 1979). Section 5, 6, 3(b)
The delinquent officer and the compe-
tent authority to dismissed him having had not given personal hearing to respondent
No.1 the officer of the respondent No. I's category, before issu- ing order of
dismissal, the same was unsustainable in law as because the previous Secretary
although gave personal hearing to respondent No. 1 but he did. not record the
final decision in any respect. Janab Qamrul Islam Siddique vs Janab Saber Ahmed
(Md. Ruhul Amin, J) (Civil) 1 ADC 224
Government Servants Discipline and
Appeal Rules, 1985.
In view of the provisions of section 6
(3) as quoted above it was within the juris- diction in the Administrative
Appellate Tribunal in altering the major penalty of dismissal from service to
the reduction in rank of the respondent.....(13). Bangladesh vs Md. Idrish Miah
(Md.) Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 2ADC 905
Since the proceeding was initiated with
the consultation of the Supreme Court, the proceeding culminated in the final
order of compulsory retirement upon holding the respondent guilty, we are of
the view that once the consultation having been made while imitating the pro-
ceeding no further consultation with the Supreme Court is necessary to pass any
final order. Bangladesh & Ors vs Champak Kishore Roy (Mohammad Fazlul Karim
J(Civil) 2ADC 981
The Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule, 7(2) (c), 10(9)
The present respondent Md. Khorshed Ali Talukder filed the above mentioned Administrative Tribunal Case No.47 of 2002. His case, in short, was that he joined the service as Sub-divisional Agriculture Officer on 22.07.1970. That while he was serving as Principal of Gaibanda Training Institute from 09.09.1997 in current charge the author- ity framed a charge against him on 20.09.2001 on the allegations of corrup- tion under Rule 3(b) and 3(d) of the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1985. Government of the People's vs. Md. Khorshed Ali Talukder (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 407
Provision of Rule 7(2) of the
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985.
Writ petitioner respondent was dis-
charging the duties as a Magistrate being delegated the power under Ordinance
of 1965 and that he was in fact exercising the power of the Government and that
the proceeding initiated against him on the face of it being malafide and
without jurisdiction he had to take shelter of the writ juris-diction of the
High Court Division, according to the learned Counsel, the proceeding being
malafide, illegally started against the respondent further continuation of the
same is contrary to law and as such the proceeding required to be stayed but
the Administrative Tribunal having no juris- diction to stay even such a
malafide pro- ceeding, the respondent had no other efficacious remedy available
to him for redressing his grievance and thus which is grated filed the writ
petition. Bangladesh, BTTB vs Mohammad Toufique (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J)
(Civil) 3ADC 345
Rule 11(3)
In Halsbury's Laws of England. 3rd
Edition Volume-14 page 637, "Waiver is the abandonment of a right, and is
either express or implied from conduct. A person who is entitled to the benefit
of a stopreater in a contract or of a statutory provision may waive it"
Government of Bangladesh vs A.K.M Fazlul Haque (M. Fazlul Karim J)(Civil)
3ADC 695
The Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Being aggrieved by this judgment of the Administrative Tribunal the Govern- ment of the People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs filed the above mentioned A.A.T. Appeal No.190 of 2007. Sarder Mahbubul Alam vs. Government of the People's (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 435
The Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Declaring the order of suspension and the departmental proceeding as illegal ..(1)
Writ-petitioner was serving as the Senior Assistant Judge the provisions of the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 allegations of cor- ruption and that he was also placed under suspension. In course of the departmental proceedings, an enquiry was held but found no evidence in respect of the allegations as raised against the writ-petitioner. Government of Bangladesh vs. Sontosh Kumar Shaha (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J) (Civil) & ADC 127
The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
The respondent Maloti Rani Mondol preferred the above A.A.T. Appeal No.49 of 2009 under Section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the learned Mem- ber, Administrative Tribunal No.1, Dhaka, in A.T. Case No.171 of 2007. The respondent filed the above A.T. Case No.171 of 2009 challenging her dismissal order from service. Her case, in short, was that she joined the service as typist under the Public Service Com- mission and served there to the satisfac- tion of all concerned. Public Service Commission vs. Maloti Rani Mondol (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 8 ADC 609
Barred by Limitation
67 DLR(AD)127: Elahi Box Sardar (Md) Vs. Government of Bangladesh & others: Rule 18 of the Government Servants (Dismissal and Appeal) Rule, 1985: The Petitioner, being an employee of the Railway, the Code is very much applicable in his case, so the Appellate Tribunal was apparently wrong in holding that the departmental appeal and the Administrative Tribunal case were barred by limitation relying upon Rule 18 of the Rules, 1985. (Para-12, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah).