BANGLADESH Vs. AKM YOUSUF MIA
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Akm Yousuf Mia
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHAMMAD ABDUR ROUF,J. -
(1.) This appeal, by leave by the Government of Bangladesh, is from the Judgment and order dated 13-8-92 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in allowing appeal No. 65 of 1991 preferred by petitioner- respondent No.1 reversing the Judgment and order dated 30-5-91 passed by the Administrative Tribunal Dhaka in dismissing Administrative Tribunal Case No. 129 of 1987.
(2.) The relevant facts are respondent No. 1 AKM Yusuf Mia, an Upper Division Assistant of the office of the General Manager. Postal Life Insurance, Dhaka was transferred on 28-7-79 along with 17 others to the office of the General Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Western Zone, Rangpur. He did not join at Rangpur on taking various pleas. He worked at Dhaka Office up to 21-8-79 and then stood released on 22-8-79 with effect from 23-8-79 from Dhaka Office. Thereafter he went on leave for some time but ultimately did not join at Rangpur Office. He, however, unsuccessfully challenged his transfer order by instituting TS No.268 of 1980 (renumbered as TS No. 553 of 1987) and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 27-6-80 restraining respondent No. 3 the General Manager, Dhaka Zone from giving effect to the said order of transfer till disposal of the suit, which, however, was dismissed on 22-1-82. He then preferred TA No.70 of 1982 against the Trial Courts decree.
(3.) Respondent No.4, the General Manager, Western Zone, Rangpur on 22-12-84 initiated a departmental proceeding against respondent No.1 under Rule 4(3) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1984, briefly, 1984 Rules, charging him with the offence under Rule 3 (Ga) and 3 (Kha) thereof for unauthorised absence from duty and misconduct. He, however, denied the charges. The enquiry proceeding, due to pendency of the Appeal in the civil Court noted earlier, having not been completed within the prescribed period of 120 days the proceeding ended automatically and thereby respondent No.1 stood released from the said charges. He did not join thereafter in service, even after the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal on 20-8-85. Then on 20-4-86 he was charged afresh under Rule 3(b) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985, briefly the 1985 Rules, for misconduct with the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He again denied the charge in writing and participated in the enquiry proceeding. The enquiry officer found him guilty of the charge. Accordingly, second show cause notice was issued on 17-7-86 by registered post. On consideration of the evidence and other materials on record the concerned authority dismissed him from service on 2-5-86. He then preferred a departmental appeal, which was dismissed on 20-12-86.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.