Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations 1979 | Case Reference

Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations 1979

Regulation 11A(2)

leave is granted to consider the follow- ing points:

Whether the instant writ petition having been decided by the High Court Divi- sion relying upon the decision reported in 13 MLR (AD) 1, (decided on 03.09.2007) interpreting the scope of regulation 11A(2) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1979 and in deciding the said case this Division having not considered an earlier decision of this Division reported in 10 BLT (AD) 22 (decided on 22.05.2000) on the same regulation in which a contrary view has been taken, the matter is required to be finally de- cided by this Court. Managing Director, Biman Bangladesh Airlines vs. Syed Khwaza Jonaid (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 10 ADC 247

Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (service) Regulation, 1979

Regulation 11A(2)- This court in Yousuf Haroon (supra) has rightly held that this regulation 11A(2) was added on 05.02.1984 after the decision in Dr. Nurul Islam (supra). It further held that since there is principle or guidelines for retiring an employee after 25 years of service, it cannot be said that regulation 11A(2) does not give any guideline or that there is scope for arbitrary exercise of power by the Corporation. It further held that employee of Biman can an be given compulsory retirement by the Corporation in exercise of powers under rule 5 of Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Pension and Gratuity) Rules, 1988 as well as regulation 11A(2). The authority before making the order of compulsory retirement was satisfied that for the interest of Corporation he was given compulsory retirement and that there was nothing on record to show that the order of compulsory retirement was made arbitrarily or malafide. Under the unamended provision, there was scope for arbitrary exercise of discretion from among persons similarly situated and holding similar job, but under the present provision there is no scope to exercise arbitrary power. We fully endorse to the views taken in Yousuf Haroon (supra). Bangladesh Biman Airlines Ltd. =VS= Captain Mir Mazharul Huq, [4 LM (AD) 66]

Reg. 53

That respondent having had voluntarily tendered his resignation and that the Biman having had accepted his letter of resignation on due compliance of the provision of the Regulations and there having no provision in the Regulations for withdrawal of resignation in the interim period of acceptance of resignation by the Biman Authority. Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs Md. Jusimuddin (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 2ADC 732

Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979

Regulation 55 read with

Constitution of Bangladesh

Article 102-It is settled principle of law that the punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Although the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the authority, yet it must suit the offence and "it should not be vindictive or unduly harsh" nor "so disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias.

The High Court Division held that the petitioner, is her reply to the 2nd show cause notice, stated that, "... সে ঘটনাটি আমার ইচ্ছাকৃত নহে এবং আমি উক্ত ঘটনায় অনুতপ্ত লজ্জিত ও ক্ষমা প্রার্থী। আমার পরিবারে আমি একমাত্র উপার্জনশীল বাক্তি। আমার উপার্জনে স্কুল পড়ুয়া ২টি সন্তানের অন্নের সংস্থান এবং লেখাপড়ার খরচ নির্বাহ হয়। আমার পিতা একজন অবসরপ্রাপ্ত চাকুরীজীবি এবং তিনিও বহুলাংশে আমার উপার্জনের উপর নির্ভরশীল। যদি আমার উপর প্রস্তাবিত চাকুরী হতে বরখাস্তের দন্ড আরোপ করা হয়, তাহলে আমাকে দুটি নাবালক সন্তান নিয়ে পথে দাঁড়াতে হবে। আমাদের পরিবারের সদস্যগণসহ আমার পিতার জীবন ধারনে দুর্বিসহ সংকট সৃষ্টি হবে। সামাজিকভাবে আমরা নিগৃহীত মানুষে পরিণত হব। আমার দীর্ঘ ১০ বৎসরের চাকুরী জীবনে সরল বিশ্বাসে কৃত প্রথম ভুলের জন্য কর্তৃপক্ষ আমাকে কঠোর শাস্তি দিলে আমাদের পুরা পরিবারে বিপর্যয় নেমে আসবে। কাজেই আমার প্রথম ভুল তথা বর্তমান ঘটনার অপরাধ মানবিক কারণে ক্ষমা করার জন্য আমি বিনীত অনুরোধ করছি". It appears that the mitigating circumstances could not soften the heart of the disciplinary authority, although later on they took lenient view on similar matters. Having regard to the attending facts, circumstances and laws discussed above, the High Court Division finds the dismissal order as being unduly harsh, highly disproportionate and shocking to the conscience. Hence, the penalty of dismissal is set aside and instead lesser penalty by stoppage of 2 (two) increments is awarded to the petitioner. This penalty, in the High Court Division view, is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, the surrounding circumstances and the mitigating factors which the High Court Division has already discussed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service. However, the period of absence from the date of dismissal order (10.11.2013) to the date of judgment (05.04.2018) shall be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay. Sabeha Afroze Kumu Vs. Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism, and others. (Spl. Original) 16 ALR (HCD) 308-312

Bangladesh Biman corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979

Regulation 59 

As writ petitioner moved the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2248 of 2002 challenging the order of his dis- missal from the service. Bangladesh Biman Corporation represented by its Managing Director vs. Riaz Uddin Ahmed (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Civil) 4ADC 941