SUDANGSHU KUMAR SAHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH
LAWS(BANG)-1995-8-3
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on August 09,1995

Sudangshu Kumar Saha Appellant
VERSUS
Government Of Bangladesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

LATIFUR RAHMAN,J. - (1.) The petitioner who was an Operator in the Foreign Post Office was dismissed from his service with effect from 11-6-88 by an order passed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner challenged his order of dismissal before the Administrative Tribunal in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 44 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 16-3-93. Against that judgment and order the petitioner preferred Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 18 of 1993 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the same was also dismissed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 6-1-94. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is seeking cave to appeal before us.
(2.) On 11-6-88 Non-First Information Report Case No. 418 of 1977 was registered against the petitioner under section 77 of the DMP Ordinance. The allegation against him was that he was found shouting in drunken condition breaking the tranquility of the area. On this allegation the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days on 11-6-88. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhaka upheld the order of conviction but modified the sentence of imprisonment to a payment of fine of Taka 200.00 only. This fact having come to the knowledge of the authority the petitioner was dismissed from his service without any show cause notice. Subsequently, his departmental appeal was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter preferred the Administrative Tribunal Case.
(3.) The Post Master General, Central Circle, Dhaka, respondent No. 2 by filing a written objection contested the case by contending that the dismissal order was passed properly under Rule 25(2)(3) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and, as such, the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.