Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section 2(a)
Leave is granted on the civil petition for
leave to appeal to consider the follow-ing points: Whether the respondent having been a Sub-Inspector of Police, the finding of the Administrative Tribunal that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is the authority of the respondent for imposition of punishment is contrary to the definition of the 'authority' given in section 2(a) of the Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinace, 1976 read with the schedule thereto, Item (2) and thus erred in law in allowing the ap- peal on this wrong finding. Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. Md. Kam- ruzzaman (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 10 ADC 235
Section 3- On consideration of section 3 of the Ordinance vis-a-vis regulation 6 of the Regulations, it is obvious that consultation with Public Service Commission is mandatory before passing the order of dismissal in respect of each of the respondent as section 3 of the Ordinance has not ousted the operation of other laws, rules and regulations. ....Bangladesh -VS- Md. Bellal Hossain Mollik, [1 LM (AD) 86]
Section 2,4,5
That in case of any Judge op Magistrate or a public servant, nor removable from his office save by order or with the sanction of the Government, being an accused of any offence, while acting in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Government. We like to observe that the two petitioners being members of the Police establishment, they are meant for maintaining law and order in the country. But the offence they committed is a heinous one and as such, in our opinion, they were rightly served by the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentencing them to death and so no lenience ought to have been shown to them. A. S. 1. Md. Ayub Ali Sardar vs The State (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Criminal) 3ADC 663
Section 4
Respondent, a constable in the police department, moved the Administrative Tribunal against an order of removing him from the service. His case in short is that he was posted at Chakbazar Po- lice outpost of Chittagong Metropolitan Police. While performing his duties dili- gently, he was served with a show cause notice making certain allegations under the Police Officers (Special Provision) Ordinance, 1976. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs. Md. Golam Nabi (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 757
Section 4(3)
According to the petitioner, upon re- ceiving the order of dismissal he pre- ferred appeal which was rejected by the authority, whereupon he preferred the case before the Administrative Tri- bunal No.1, Dhaka. Upon hearing both sides the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 28.05.2008 dismissed the case against which the petitioner filed appeal out of time along with an ap- plication for condonation of delay be- fore the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka. By the impugned order dated 15.02.2009 the Adminis- trative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka. re- jected the application for condonation of delay thereby also dismissed the ap- peal on ground of limitation........(3) Mr. Omar Farooq, the learned Advo- cate appearing on behalf of the peti- tioner submits that the petitioner was delayed in preferring the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal due to his inability to procure the fund for the purpose of preferring appeal. He further submits that the delay was only one month and ten days and the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka erro- neously considered the delay to be five months and twenty days. He submits that the petitioner's explanation was adequate but the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay due to miscal- culation.....(4)
We have given our anxious thoughts to the submissions of the learned Ad- vocate for the petitioner as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Although delay caused by impecu- niosity is not a ground for condona- tion under the Limitation Act, we bear in mind the fact that the authority did not accede to the petitioner's prayer to stay the departmental proceedings pending, disposal of the criminal case, which ended in his acquittal. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay in pre- ferring the appeal. Rajendra Prashad Nandi vs. Bangladesh (Muhammad Imman Ali J) (Civil) 10 ADC 1001
Sections 4(1) and 4(4)
It appears that the Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner-respon- dent did not come within the mischief of section 4 of the Ordinance. The Ap- pellate Tribunal further found that there was no evidence that the respondent abetted acts of misappropriation by SI Shahidul Islam. The Appellate Tribunal also found that the order dated 15.06.1998 removing the respondent from service and the order dated 11.08.1998 rejecting the appeal did not appear to be legal. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Sharifur Rahman (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 10 ADC 348
