KAMRUL HASAN Vs. BANGLADESH
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
MD.ABDUR ROUF J. -
(1.) Petitioner, an ex- Economic Councilor for Bangladesh, posted at Bangladesh Embassy in Stockholm has sought leave to appeal from the judgment and order passed on August 3 1995 by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No, 3 of 1995 by the Administrative Tribunal Dhaka in AT Case No. 310 of 1994 rejecting the petitioners prayer to stay operation of memo No. ERD/ Ba-5 (153) Misc. 34 dated 28.9.94 pending disposal of the said AT Case, whereby he has been directed by the respondent to repay certain amount of money.
(2.) Petitioners case in short, is that he is the Director (Finance), Mukti Joddhya Kalyan Trust. On June 1994 by Order of the President, he was appointed as Economic Councilor at Economic Wing of Bangladesh Embassy at Stockholm. Under the terms and conditions of his appointment, in order to meet the traveling and other expenses, he was given in advance a sum of Taka 4, 73,360 on June 24:1994. He spent major portion of that amount in purchasing essential house-hold articles for his new establishment. But his appointment was cancelled by an order dated. 18.8.94 issued by the Ministry of Finance. On August 20, 1994 he was asked to deposit the money advanced to him and thereby he deposited by challan a sum of Taka 1,97,780, which was given to him on account of traveling expenses. Thereafter, by the above mentioned Memo he was further directed to deposit the rest of the money in Bangladesh Bank. He was unsuccessful in the review preferred to the President. Thereafter he filed the above mentioned case in the Administrative Tribunal and filed an application, with a prayer to stay the operation of the impugned Notification pending disposal of that case and the same was rejected on January 28,1995, against which he preferred the above mentioned Misc. Appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order upon holding, inter alia, that the Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 does not empower them to grant any interim relief as has been sought for.
(3.) Mr. Awlad Ali, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that Administrative Appellate Tribunal has committed an error of law in not holding that the Administrative Tribunal acted illegally in refusing to stay operation of the impugned Memo in the interest of justice pending disposal of the case. The learned Advocate further submitted that the Administrative Tribunal by virtue of its authority, contemplated under Article 117 of the Constitution for deciding service matters and in view of the provision of section 4 and 6 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 has an inherent authority to grant such stay of the order complained against, pending final adjudication in the matter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.