Dismissed from Service on the ground that they were convicted.
Workers and as such the writ petitions at their instance against their dismissal from service were not maintainable without first approaching the Labour Court for relief and in that view of the matter the judgment of the High Court Division is liable to be set aside Meghna Textile Mills Ltd vs Md. Barkatullah & others (4) (M. M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 3 ADC 32
Leniency in punishment
An unblemished record of 22 years of service may provide a good ground for awarding a less harsh sentence in the form of compulsory retirement in place of dismissal from service. But it can never be a good ground for reinstating him in the service when the authority has lost confidence in him. Sonali Bank Vs. Ruhul Amin Khan, 14 BLD(AD)171
An unblemished record of 22 years of service provides a good ground for awarding a less harsh sentence in the form of Compulsory Retirement in place of Dismissal from service. .....(16)
That though the allegation brought against the respondent no.01 is proved by a competent departmental proceed- ing, it would be more justified if the authority concerned gave him the less harsh punishment of Compulsory Retirement instead of Removing him from Service considering the tenure of his service and past record. As such we are inclined to modify the punishment awarded to the respondent no.01 and thereby impose 'Compulsory Retirement' in lieu of 'Removal from Service .......(17)
BREB vs. Mahabub-Ul-Alam Chowdhury (Borhanuddin J) (Civil) 20 ADC 242
Dismissal from service: The respondent was dismissed from service after observing all formalities as required under the Police Officer (Special Provision) Ordinance 1976, but the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the respondent and therefore he had no opportunity to submit his representation and he was seriously prejudiced. (Para-2 & 7, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Matin): Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & others Vs. Md. Samsuzzaman: 7 ADC 635
The Administrative Appellate Tribunal however, on consideration on this petitioner's long 26 years service and also the inure of the allegations brought against him found that the punishment of dismissal was unreasonably severe and harsh and therefore, set aside the punishment of dismissal and passed the order for compulsory retirement of this petitioner with direction to the authority concerned to give all benefits of compulsory retirement to the petitioner as per law. (Para-10, Ms. Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana): Sarder Mahbubul Alam Vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & others: 5 XP(AD)65
Dismissal from service- No malafide action and deliberate negligence: Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 read with Regulations 38(Ka, Kha & Cha) of the Janata Bank Employees' Service Regulations, 1995: The Administrative Appellate Tribunal came to a finding that respondent No.1 herein performed some routine works on the instruction of the Bank Manager in respect of the dissolved loans, after the loan papers were finally approved and sanctioned by the Branch Manager. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal further found that there was no malafide in the action of the petitioner and that there were no deliberate latches or negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in discharging his duty, The Administrative Appellate Tribunal then found that the inquiry officer examined respondent No.1 in a question-answer form, a procedure not approved by law, and that respondent No. I had been seriously prejudiced thereby. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal then held that non recording of the evidence of the witness had indeed deprived respondent No.1 of the right of cross-examination of he witnesses. Therefore, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was inclined to award a lesser punishment in consideration of the fact that respondent No.I had in his credit an unblemished service career for long period. (Para-14, Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain): Janata Bank & another Vs. Nil Ratan Das & others: 3 CLR(AD)147
