Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982
Rule 6(7) -When the delay of 1 (one) year 10 (ten) months, and the explanation of the ondonation of delay was not at all satisfactory the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong or illegality in rejecting the application. It appears to the Appellate Division that A.A.T. Appeal No. 72 of 2000 was dismissed for default on 08.05.2006 and thereafter about 1 (one) year 10 (ten) months after passing of the said dismissal order this appellant filed the miscellaneous case for setting aside the said dismissal order the explanation which this appellant offered before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal for condonation of delay was not at all satisfactory for condonation of the said long delay of 1 (one) year 10 (ten) months. So, the Appellate Division finds that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong or illegality in rejecting the said miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of appeal holding that as barred by limitation. Considering the facts narrated above, the Appellate Division rather finds that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was quite justified in rejecting the miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of the appeal. Nur Mohammad -Vs.- Bangladesh and others (Civil) 20 ALR (AD) 100-102
Rule 6(9)- Decision given by the Appellate Tribunal having not been made as per the Rules it did not reach finality and the Tribunal did not become functus officio-It had jurisdiction as an adjudicating body to recall the decision and order rehearing. Abu Taleb vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 45. Rule 7-Order 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 Mozammel Hossain vs Post Master, Faridpur 43 DLR 415. Rule 7-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. Rule 10-Non-mentioning of name of the petitioner in the 161 statements cannot exclude him from all possibilities of implication as an abettor of the offence because he is a beneficiary of the illegal transaction which was allegedly done in connivance with other accused named in the FIR and the charge-sheet. Ali Haider Chowdhury vs State, 65 DLR 116
Rule 15-Sanction letter issued by the commission in compliance with the statutory provision of law cannot be termed as mechanical and contrary to law. Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1
Rule 15(7)-Form-3'-'Form-3' is the part of the statute and accordingly when a specified form has been prescribed in the statute for particular purpose to accord sanction for prosecution the sanctioning authority has no scope to assign any reason for its satisfaction beyond the format given in the form. Golam Nabi vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 181
Rule 17(5)(6) Sub-rules 5 and 6 of Rule 17 relate to section 26 of the Act, and Rule 17 only deals with the offence mentioned in section 26 of the Act. Rule 17 does not deal with the offence contem- plated by section 27 of the Act. There is no nexus in between section 26 and 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act contemplates for starting a proceeding against the accused- petitioner under section 27(1) of the Act independently. The offence under section 27 of the ACC Act can also be constituted and tried independently. If a proceeding is initiated against the accused-petitioner only under section 27 of the Act, that proceeding is very much maintainable and sustainable in the eye of law. Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1
