BANGLADESH Vs. AM MANSUR AHMED
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Am Mansur Ahmed
Click here to view full judgement.
BIMALENDU BIKASH ROY CHOUDHURY,J. -
(1.) This appeal by the Government is from the judgment and order dated 23 February 1995 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal Nos.58 of 1990 and 3 of 1991.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances. A departmental proceeding was started against respondent No.1 AM Monsur Ahmed by his authority when he held the position of Deputy Assistant Director of the Department of Fire Service and Civil Defence under Rules 3(b) and 3(d) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 on the charges of corruption and misconduct. Respondent No.3 the Director General of Fire Service and Civil Defence appointed a three-member Inquiry Board to enquire into the charges. The enquiry ended in a report finding respondent No.1 guilty of the charges leveled against nine counts out of eleven. On 24 December 1987, a second show cause notice was issued to him. The reply not being satisfactory respondent No.3, by his order dated 23 February 1988, retired him compulsorily taking a lenient view considering the long period of his service. This was done in consultation with the Public Service Commission; Respondent No.1 preferred a departmental appeal, which was dismissed on 12 March 1989.
(3.) Respondent No.1 took the matter before the Administrative Tribunal by means of Tribunal Case No. 155 of 1989. The Government contested the case. The Tribunal upon hearing both sides found that there was illegality or irregularity in the departmental proceeding. It however took the view that the charges established against respondent No 1 were not serious and by judgment and order dated which were October 1990 reduced the penalty of compulsory retirement to withholding of Promotion of the respondent for 5 years. Both the Government and respondent No. 1 filed appeals therefrom, Appeal Nos. 58 of 1990 and 3 of 1991 to the Administrative, Appellate Tribunal. Agreeing with the findings of the Tribunal the Appellate Tribunal held that in view of the minor nature of the misconduct found against the respondent stoppage of 3 annual increments would meet the ends of justice and accordingly modified the order of the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Government.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.