Employees Service Regulations, 1990
Rules 44 and 45- Reduce rank as not completed length of service The writ- petitioner-respondent was demoted to a lower rank because he had not completed the length of service, which is a condition precedent to get promotion. For this reason, it cannot be said that he was victimized and awarded punishment. The respondent No.1 by office order dated 09.05.2013 rightly reduced him to a lower rank. Actually, respondent was posted to the rank, where he originally belonged to. Reducing the writ-petitioner-respondent to his original post is in no way can be termed as punishment, thus no show cause notice was required to be served upon him.
This demotion of the writ-petitioner- respondent by the writ-respondent No.1 by office order dated 09.05.2013 was not a punishment, so the provisions of Rules 44 and 45 of the কর্মচারী চাকুরী প্রবিধানমালা, ১৯৮৯ are not to be followed. In this instant case, the respondent was demoted in accordance with law because before promotion he did not complete the length of service required to get promotion to a higher post. The High Court Division failed to consider this aspect of the case and, as such, the judgment and order dated 02.07.2017 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.5001 of 2013 is liable to be interfered. The petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside.... Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation =VS= Shaheenoor Bhuiyan, [10 LM (AD) 309]
Regulation 50(2)- Orders of termination to have been passed without lawful authority- Reliance on the case of Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation vs Md Shahidullah 54 DLR (AD) 124, it has been held as under: "It appears that the Corporation initially wanted to remove the respondent through a proceeding and that having failed, they wanted to take action for compulsory retirement under Regulation 55(2) of Service Regulations, 1990 and that also having failed his service was terminated. As a matter of fact from the materials on record, the learned Judges of the High Court Division correctly held that in the present case, it was punishment/dismissal in the garb of termination and consequently set aside the order of termination." Reliance on the case of Parjatan Corporation vs Md Ali Hossain, 65 DLR (AD) 158 wherein it has been held that the impugned letter of termination passed against the petitioner of this case though appears to be a termination simpliciter, but in fact, it is not. The petitioner was dismissed from his service in the garb of termination by resorting to regulation 50(2) of the Employees Service Regulations, 1990.
Facts and circumstances of the present case as the letter dated 29-11-2007 reveals that there was an inquiry about the appointment of the writ-petitioner-respondents and pursuant to the said inquiry, the writ- petitioner-respondents were terminated from service by the letter dated 11-12- 2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ-petitioner-respondents were termi- nated from service and in fact, they were dismissed from service in the garb of termination. We do not find any substance in these appeals. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed without any order as 10 costs....Ashuganj Fertilizer & Chemical Co. Ltd. VS-Md Abu Sufian Bhuiyan, [6 LM (AD) 158]
