UPAZILA NIRBAHI OFFICER Vs. ASM HARUNAR RASHID
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Upazila Nirbahi Officer
Asm Harunar Rashid
Click here to view full judgement.
MD.TAFAZZUL ISLAM,J. -
(1.) This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-7-2005 of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 4609 of 2003 making the Rule absolute with a direction upon the petitioner to allow the respondent No.1 to resume his duties as the Principal of Shahebabad Islamia Senior Fazil Madrassa within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
(2.) The respondent No.1 filed the above writ petition challenging the Memo No. 567(10) dated 28-5-2003 issued by the appellant in the capacity of Chairman of the Governing Body of Shahebabad Islamia Senior Fazil Madrassa, Brahmanpara, Comilla, dismissing him from the post of Principal of the above Madrassa on the averments that he was absent in the above Madrassa for a few days for the want of his safety and security and during that time Mr. Md. Sayeedur Rahman, the Vice Principal of the above Madrassa, was in charge as the Principal and subsequently being directed to function as Principal of the said Madrassa vide Memo No. 750(7) dated 26-10-2002 issued under signature of appellant, he took over the charge of Principal and started functioning but in the first week of July, 2003, he came to know that he has been discharged from the post of Principal then he, on going to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Comilla, collected the copy of the Memo No. 576(1) dated 28-5-2003 purportedly under the signature of the appellant discharging him from the post of Principal and that although the appellant did all these things in the name of the Governing Body of the Madrassa but, in fact, no regular Governing Body of the Madrassa was in existence at the time of his discharge as long before, by order dated 13-6-2002 a copy of which was also served upon him, the Registrar of the Bangladesh Madrassa Education Board dissolved the then Governing Body of the Madrassa and directed him for taking initiative to form an Ad-hoc Committee for running of the affairs of the above Madrassa and challenging the said order dated 13-6-2002 one Abdul Halim, a member of the dissolved Governing Body, filed Title Suit No. 18 of 2002 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Brahmanpara, Comilla with a prayer for an order of temporary injunction along with an order of ad-interim injunction and by order dated 15-4-2003 the order of ad-interim injunction, as sought, was granted but however, after hearing, the application for temporary injunction was rejected and then, in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Registrar of the Madrasa Board, he took initiatives to form an Ad-hoc Committee for the above Madrasa and accordingly, for the said Ad-hoc Committee Alhaj Md. Mosharraf Hossain Bhuiyan was nominated as the guardian member, Md. Tajul Islam was nominated as Teacher Representative by the Director General of the Department of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Md. Abul Kashem as person interested in education by the Chairman of the Madrasa Board and that the appellant, as Upazila Nirbahi Officer, and he, as Principal, respectively became the Ex-officio Chairman and Member of the said Ad-hoc Committee and that the contents of Annexures-E, F and G series will show that the Governing Body of the Madrasa was dissolved and an Ad-hoc Committee was formed but in spite of that the appellant passed the impugned order dated 13-6-1983 as Chairman of the Governing Body which was no more in existence on 28-5-2003 when order of his discharge was passed and further the appellant passed the impugned order without consulting the members of the Ad-hoc Committee which at the relevant time was entrusted with the functions of looking after the affairs of the above Madrasa and the impugned order is also totally arbitrary and malafide because as will be evident from the Annexures-B, C and D series, the appellant just within 19 days, hurriedly completed the proceeding to discharge him from the post of Principal.
(3.) The High Court Division, after hearing, made the Rule absolute.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.