ABU TALEB Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Government Of Bangladesh
Click here to view full judgement.
MUSTAFA KAMAL,J. -
(1.) This appeal by leave by the appellant-petitioner is from the judgment and order dated 30.8.93 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 34 of 1988 affirming those of the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka dated 27.10.88 dismissing the appellant's AT Case No. 22 of 1988 filed against the order dated 2.1.88 passed under the order of the President retiring him from service under section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 (Act XII of 1974), briefly the Act.
(2.) The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Communication Engineer in the Civil Aviation Department on the 15th March, 1960 and it is his case that by dint of merit he was gradually promoted to the post of Director, Civil Aviation Authority. In 1985 the Government formed a corporate body, namely, Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh, by abolishing the Department of Civil Aviation which was purely a Government Department, by Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance No. XXXVIII of 1985). About 2,000 employees of the Civil Aviation Department were transferred by the Government to the newly created Authority with the condition that they will be governed by the terms and conditions of service to be framed by the new Authority which had the effect of invalidating their service conditions which they enjoyed as Government servants. They formed a "Samannya Parishad" and launched a movement for withdrawal of the Ordinance of 1985. By Civil Aviation Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance No. LI of 1985) the transferred employees were given the status of Government servants to be treated as on deputation for the purpose of promotion, pension, retirement benefits, etc. The former Airport Development Agency picked up quarrels with the deputationist officials on flimsy pretexts and on the 18th and 19th February, 1987 a number of Airport Development Agency employees insulted a Senior Officer and a Staff of the former Civil Aviation Department which was duly reported to the Chairman without any result. On the 19th February, 1987 they again started assaulting some deputationist officials on duty which incident infuriated the deputationists who went on a strike which continued up to the 24th February. On the 25th February the strikers resumed their duties. The appellant did not join the strike. He performed his duties throughout the period of strike. By a Gazette Notification dated 1.3.87 the Government constituted a 4-Member Enquiry Committee (a) to determine the reasons of the incident that took place on the 19th February, 1987; (b) to identify the persons responsible for the incident and (c) to enquire into any other matter which the Committee thinks necessary in connection with the incident and to submit its report by 23.3.87. The appellant contended that the enquiry was held secretly and the appellant was never asked to show cause or appear before the Committee nor any charge was framed against him. On the basis of the secret report the Government retired the appellant under section 9(2) of Act XII of 1974 on 2.1.88 malafide and in colourable exercise of power.
(3.) Respondent No.2 the Chairman, Civil Aviation Authority in its written statement contended that the appellant was retired under section 9(2) of the said Ordinance in the public interest without assigning any reason. He has been given all pensionary and other benefits and the order was not passed as a measure of punishment and, as such, it was not challengeable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.