Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980

Ss. 1-2 Definitions Whether administrative tribunal can be termed as Court. There are Tribunals with many of the trappings of a Court which nevertheless are not Courts in the strict sense of exercising judicial power. An Administrative Tribunal may act judicially but still remains an Administrative Tribunal as distinguished from a Court. A Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court, but it is not a Court proper. Under Article 117 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 a provides for conferring state's judicial powers on some Tribunals that may in future cumulate some of the attributions which are divided between the formal Court system and the growing practice of adjudication of disputes by tribunals. The Administrative Tribunals are not like the High Court or the Subordinate Court over which the High Court Division exercises both judicial review and superintendence. They are set apart as sui generis, in a separate chapter. The parliament can make more tribunals for matters relating or arising out of sub-clause (a) of Article 117. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Administrative Tribunal is a quasi-judicial Tribunal to which a person injured is affected by any action whatsoever of a public servant while exercising power during the process of service. Through the Administrative Tribunal, the public servant is getting relief and necessary corrections to the executive action are made. Besides departmental action through executive authorities, side by side judicial remedy lies with the prerogative writs, which the Superior Courts are to exercise by virtue of power vested in them to issue. In the exercise of prerogative writs, the Superior Courts are eventually reduced to the task of construction of the relevant statute and may only interfere either by mandamus where there has been a clear violation of mandatory provision by omission or commission or by certiorari where they find that the statutory act was essentially judicial in nature and not purely executive act. PLD 1961 (SC) 537 Tribunals have a special distinguishable position of their own dimension under the proviso of the Constitution. Special matter and question related to are entrusted to the Tribunal for rightful decisions and in that sense those share with the Courts one common characteristic. Both the Court and the Tribunal are constituted and vested with judicial as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions. Courts and Administrative Tribunals are performing judicial function and deal with litigation and disputes arising out between the parties which are entrusted to their respective jurisdiction. The procedure followed by the Court is unique and defined through settled procedure in discharging function and in exercising powers they have to conform to their own prescribed procedure. On the other hand, the Tribunal follows a loose procedure as has not been strictly prescribed as that of Court but the approach adopted by both of the institutions are the same and no major difference between the functions of both exists. Judicial functions and judicial powers are the ingredients of suiguris country and both are transformed to the Court established by the Constitution. The basic and fundamental requirement which are common to both Courts and the Tribunals is in the matter of discharging judicial functions and judicial powers which are inherent of a sovereign State. AIR 1965 (SC) 1595. The object of the constitution of Administrative Tribunal is to provide a forum exclusively limited to service matter relating to the terms and conditions of a civil public servant PLD 1979 (Kar) 610. Where any Administrative Tribunal is set up no Court shall entertain any proceeding or make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal. Md Mansur Ali vs Janata Bank 1991 BLD 23. It is settled principle of interpretation that an expression used in a constitutional enactment conferring legislative powers must be construed not in any narrow or restricted sense, but in a sense beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of the powers. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 112. Section 2(b)-The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Sections 2 and 4-The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, Ist Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 91 Sections 2(aa) and The transferability or non transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. Sections 3 and 5-There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or coequal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the Tribunals. Majibar Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Section 4-The transferability or non-transferability of appellants 'service is a condition of the employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the section of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980. The impugned order of transfer is an action taken in relation with the appellants service in the corporation, and any grievance with regard to that could only be agitated before the Administrative Tribunal. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs BHBFC 42 DLR (AD) 104. Section 4 Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal-An Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by any person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority in respect of the terms and conditions of his service or in respect of any inction taken in relation to him as a person in such service but such an application shall have to be made within six months of the making or taking the impugned order or action Sonali Bank vs Ruhul Amin Khan 1994 BLD (AD) 171. Section does not provide for any period of limitation for filing departmental Appeals from departmental orders. These are provided for in the relevant service regulations of various statutory authorities. Md Nurul Haq vs Governor Bangladesh Bank 1994 BLD (AD) 5. Section 4 Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in service matter of Government Servants and Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter: Md Habibur Rahman vs AG, Works & WAPDA 1987 BLD 44 Section 4-A terminated officer of the Investment Corporation of Bangladesh can invoke writ jurisdiction directly for striking down any statute or rules framed thereunder for enforcement of his fundamental right, but if he can obtain full relief from the Administrative Tribunal without striking down the statute or rules then the writ petition would be incompetent and as the grounds urged for declaring the regulation 56(2) of the Corporation are grounds connected with two laws, not with fundamental rights, the remedy lies before the Administrative Tribunal. Abul Bashar vs Bangladesh and others / BLC (AD) 77. Section 4-The transfer being a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, the legality or otherwise of the order of transfer is exclusively triable by the Administrative Tribunal. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Chairman, Labour Court. 41 DLR Section 4-Return of plaint in a matter relating to persons in the service of the Republic-Amendment replacing a cause of action, after it had ceased to exist, by a new cause of action so as to change the nature of the suit and the cause of action will not be allowed, and if allowed, cannot relate back to the date of filing the suit. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court having been vested in the Administrative Tribunal by the promulgation of special statute the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Bank employees has been ousted, and in that view of the matter, the plaint was rightly returned by the Civil Court for presentation to the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction. Monsur Ali vs Janata Bank 43 DLR 394. Section 4 Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal It can strike down an order for violation of natural justice and for infringement of fundamental rights but it cannot strike down any bar or rule on the ground of its constitutionality, Duty of Court is to see the right given under Article 102(1) is not frittered away or misused. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 4 DLR (AD) 111. Section 4-t is contended that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 has no jurisdiction under section 4(1) to decide the question of transfer and that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution is negatived by the expression "action taken in relation to him as person in the service of Republic which includes the order of transfer as the order of transfer is made in relation to a person of the Republic for which the writ petition fails on the ground of maintainability and the remedy lies before the Administrative Tribunal Shamsul Haque (d) vs Bangladesh, Secretary Ministry of Disaster Management & Relief and others / BLC 93. Section For legal remedies in service matters civilian employees in Defence Services can well invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal Ishaquddin Ahmed @ Md Ishaquddin Ahmed vs Commandant, School of Armour and Centre, Bogra Cantonment, Bogra and others 51 DLR (AD144. Section The financial benefit during the period of dismissal cannot be claimed as a matter of right when such dismissal is set aside on the procedural defect as to show cause notice. Sujit Kumar Majumdar vs Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and others 57 DLR (AD) 145. Section 4-The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents claiming themselves to be government servants and challenged the order directing them to apply for giving appointment afresh. Although the defendant contested the suit but could not prove his case as the prayer for shifting the date of hearing was refused and the suit was decreed and on appeal the appellate Court sent the case on remand to the trial Court giving the defendant a chance to prove his case holding that civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and the High Court Division endorsed the said view in civil revision. Since the petitioner could not get any opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court, it is the trial Court who will decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence and will also consider afresh the issue as to the maintainability of the suit in civil Court because of the plea of bar under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Mohammad Hossain vs Monowara Begum and others 2 BLC (AD) 124 Section 4-If one Branch of the Department of the Government is not following the lawful order of the hierarchy of the Governmental authority, definitely the person who is aperieved can come before this Court and pray for direction or declaration to implement, fulfil or buy the lawn order of the Government which the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to do. Matiur Rahman (Md) v Bangladesh, through the Secretary Ministry of Establishment of the Government of the People's Repuide of Bangladesh & ors 30 DLR 337. Section 4-As the petitioner's departmental appeal being burred and there being no decision of any higher administrative authority in respect of the impugned order dated 20-5-86, the petitioner's application before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation as well as not maintainable, Abdus Sukkur (M) Chairman National Board of Revenue, Bangladesh and others 2 BLC (AD) 118 Section 4 When the petitioners admitted in their written objection that the principle of natural justice demanded that their appointments should have been regularised, their appointments could not be cancelled unilaterally and in such circumstances the Appellate Tribunal need not have gone into the question as to whether the circular in question was only for executive guidance with no statutory force. Government of Bangladesh, & others vs Md Abdul Malek Miah and others 4 BLC (AD) 221 Section Petitioners have not been given any right under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hafizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147. Seetion 4-Promotion being part of the terms and conditions of the service a grievance in respect of the same undoubtedly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Junnur Rahman Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha (BSRS) and others 50 DLR 39. Section 4-Question of payment of subsistence to the government servant during suspension, relates to terms and conditions of service within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Sheikh Abdul Hakim vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 333 Section 4 Unless a final decision is made by higher Administrative Authority after the conclusion of the proceeding under challenge an application cannot be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal, but before such decision to be made by the authority, the right of the petitioner in the service of the Republic and his remuneration cannot be curtailed by the respondent who had no legal authority to do so. Therefore, the departmental proceeding is held to be without any jurisdiction and it must be perished under the wheel of judicial review Shahjahan Howlader (Md) vs Brzlur Rahman & another 32 DLR 358 Section 4-Heirs of Government servant --Not entitled to seek relief-On a comparative study of our and Indian Administrative Tribunals Acts it appears that a person, who is or was in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority specified in the schedule of our Act, has been retired, dismissed, removed or discharged from service, may make an application before the Administrative Tribunal for necessary relief but no person other than the person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority can maintain such application whereas under the Indian Act "a person aggrieved" may maintain any application before the Administrative Tribunal where judicial pronouncement has allowed the heirs of the government servant to file such application treating them as the persons aggrieved. Kazi Shamsunnahar & others vs Commandant PRF Khulna and others 2 BLC 569 Section 4-It is not the inflexible rule that a Government Servant on re instatement in service after setting aside the dismissal from service shall always be allowed the financial benefit for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement. When the conduct of delinquent was found unfair he is not entitled to such benefit. The financial benefit during the period of dismissal cannot be claimed as a matter of right when such dismissal is set aside on technical ground of procedural defect. Sujit Kumar vs Government of Bangladesh 3 MLR (AD) 94. Section 4-In a departmental enquiry where the charges are established by evidence and the delinquent Government servant is given all reasonable opportunity of defence, the order of dismissal from service cannot be declared void or set aside only on the ground of wrong mention of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1984 since repealed in place of the Rules of 1985 in the order of the dismissal. Since the Government did not lack in authority to impose the penalty and since no prejudice was caused to the delinquent merely because of the bonafide inadvertent wrong noting of the Rules, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be set aside as invalid. Government of Bangladesh vs Montulal Barua 3 MLR (AD) 96. Section 4 Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal to decide dispute of pension Administrative Tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to pension of the employees of the Republic or statutory bodies and the jurisdiction of all other Courts in such matters are ousted as envisaged by Article 117 of the Constitution. Bangladesh Retired Government Employees Welfare Association and others w Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance and others 4 MLR (AD) 89 = 5I DLR (AD) 121 Section Scope of interference with the order of dismissal of an officer of Sonali Bank-Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service on the findings that the inquiry was duly held in accordance with the rules of procedure and the principle of nature justice was not violated and those findings being well reasoned were affirmed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. There is nothing wrong in the findings and decision of the tribunals and as such, the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Abdul Aziz vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank and others 4 MLR (AD) 401. Section 4-Order passed by the Tribunal is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such order passed by the Tribunal is not executable. AKM Ali Imam vs DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, & another 54 DLR (AD) 5. Section The Subordinate Judge could have split up the suit for trying the second cause which is for damages for defamatory statement and for implicating the plaintiff in a false case The claim on account of tort committed by the defendant can be tried by the civil Court. Khandkar Abul Hussain vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 467. Section In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case, Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65. at Section The authority imparting any punishment upon a delinquent staff has a duty to see that he has been dealt with in accordance with law and following the principles of natural justice. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication vs Abul Khair 56 DLR (AD) 183. Section For the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner he is aggrieved and for which he wants to seek a remedy to redress the same and certainly on that score this is an action within the meaning of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and as such very much triable before the Administrative Tribunal. Humayun Hafiz (Md), Intelligence Officer vs Bangladesh and others 57 DLR 609. Section 4–Since the Subordinate Courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court only and the Judges function under the superintendence and control of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court, they are not subject to jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for any matter with respect to their service and other ancillary matters including magistrates performing judicial functions, as they are performing sovereign functions of the State specified under the Constitution. [Appeal allowed in part, see 52 DLR (AD) 82] Masdar Hossain (Md) and 440 others vs Bangladesh, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 2 BLC 444 Section 4- Considering the legal position the Administrative Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General Secretary. Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94. Section 4-If the eligible person is not considered for promotion, in such case the aggrieved person can enforce his right by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Division as such right cannot be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. M Abu Raihan vs Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology. Bangladesh Secretariat and others 7 BLC 44. Section 4- Administrative Tribunal is the proper forum as it is the proper fact finding body to go into facts as alleged by the petitioners and grant necessary relief if they were so entitled as the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the law on the basis of which Roads and Railway Division has been created and the posts of the former Railway Division have been abolished by the respondents. Except the assertion by the learned Advocate of malafide action there is no facts averred in all the five writ petitions constituting malafide action leading to passing of the impugned orders. Karimun Nessa and others w Government of Bangladesh and others 9 BLC 342 Section 4- An absentee employee is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. Whether the petitioner suffered physical disability and became unable to attend his duties or he wilfully remained absent from performing his duties are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Sheikh Abdul Hakim vs Bangladesh and others 3 BLC 606 Section 4- Transferability or non transferability being one of the conditions of service of the Republic falls within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution is ousted in such matter. When efficacious remedy is available in competent forum the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Md Tajul Islam vs Governor, Bangladesh Bank and others. I MLR 52 Section 4-Jurisdiction-The Administrative Tribunals have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide dispute relating to terms and conditions of service including seniority and promotion. But when such dispute is mixed with the determination of the constitutionality of any notification or rules, it excludes the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. The remedy in such case lies in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Shafiuddin Ahmed and others. 2 MLR (AD) 257 = 50 DLR (AD) 27 = 3 BLC (AD) 6. Section 4- Where the charge in a departmental proceeding in which the delinquent officer was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement, was framed by the competent authority is a question of fact. When this issue was agitated before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and was decided in reference to the records of the proceedings, there is little scope for interference with such decision by the Appellate Division. Md Anawar Hossain Chowdhury vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others 2 MLR (AD) 382. Section 4- Dismissal of a person from service of the Republic relates to terms and conditions of his service. His remedy against dismissal from service lies in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division. Unless a question of deciding the vires of any law or rule is involved, dispute relating to terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic does not attract the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Order of dismissal passed under MLO 9 but not communicated to the person concerned before repeal of the MLO is not a vat it order and it is of no legat effect. The requirement of law is the communication of the order to the person concerned and not the actual date of receipt thereof by him. It is not within the jurisdiction of the High Court Division to direct the Government to grant to an employee promotion, seniority, increment and back salaries, etc when no such relief was sought for When the petitioner contested the election to Parliament accepting the cessation of his relation to the service he cannot now seek for his re-instatement: Law does not permit a person to enjoy double advantages. Further, when the petitioner lost in the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, his remedy was in the appeal before the Appellate Division and not in writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division, Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Establishment Division and others vs Mahbubuddin Ahmed 3 MLR (AD) 121. Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-Transfer of a Class II employee from one station to another relates to the terms and conditions of his service. Violation of the terms and conditions of service may be violation of law but this is not violation of any fundamental rights. Transferability of a class III employee being relatable to the terms and conditions of service remedy against such transfer is available in the Administrative Tribunal as provided under Article 117 read with section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Mohammad Faruque 4 MLR (AD) 12 = 51 DLR (AD) 112. Section 4-Limitation for filing application before the Administrative Tribunal is six months-An application under section 4(1) of the Act has to be filed before the Administrative Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation of six months from the date of making or taking decision by departmental higher authority. When not filed within the statutory period such an application is barred by limitation. Abul Kashem vs The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and others 2 MLR (AD) 51. Section 4- The Act is prospective in operation and not retrospective as no such intention is expressed in the Act itself. No application lies before the Administrative Tribunal in respect of an order of removal from service made before the Administrative Tribunals Act 1980 came into effect. Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is not the appellate authority in respect of order of removal passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh vs Abdul Latif Chokder 1 MLR (AD) 393 49 DLR (AD) 29. Section 4- The applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for any relief unless he had approached the higher administrative authority seeking redressment of his grievance. Similarly, one cannot seek relief by way of enforcement of the order of court passed in a case in which he was not a party. In a case for determining seniority other persons likely to be affected by the order must be made parties to the proceedings, Abdul Kader Patwari vs Bangladesh Bank represented by Governor and others. 2 MLR (AD) 89 = 49 DLR (AD) 47. Section 4-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Jurisdiction with regard to an employee of the Railway Board-The respondent's petition before the Labour Court relates to terms and conditions of his service-In view of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, the Administrative Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and consequently, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. General Manager, Bangladesh Railway vs Labour Court. 1988 BLD 125. Section 4 -Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-In domestic enquiry departmental authority is not bound by the findings of Inquiry Officer Negligence of duty constitutes offence of misconduct-The departmental authority is not bound by the findings of the Inquiry officer. It can take different decision on the basis of the materials on record. When negligence of duty falling within the definition of misconduct on the part of the petitioner was well proved the authority was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty of censure and recovery of the loss caused by the delinquent petitioner. Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong in upholding the penalty. Dr Md Lutfur Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 6 MLR (AD) 66. Section 4- Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 read with Rule 72(a) of Bangladesh Service Rules 1-Provides for entitlement of arrear pay and allowances during wrongful retirement-It is well settled that a Government servant is entitled to all the arrear pay and allowance upon his reinstatement after the wrongful compulsory retirement from service is set aside as provided under Rule 72(a) of the Bangladesh Service Rules I for the whole period as if he was in service during that period. The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal were perfectly justified in granting such benefit to the respondent in exercise of jurisdiction under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1980. Secretary Ministry of Establishment va A Nurunnabi 6 MLR (AD) 81 = 33 DLR (AD) 41. Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Appellate Tribunal in altering, reducing, setting aside or modifying penalty imposed by domestic tribunal Administrative Appellate Tribunal has all the power to alter, reduce, set aside or modify the penalty imposed by domestic tribunal in an appeal against the decision of Administrative Tribunal. When the appellant was meted out with differential treatment in violation of fundamental rights having been on equal footing with others the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was perfectly justified in interfering with and altering and reducing the penalty of removal of the appellant from service into one of retirement Government of Bangladesh & others vs Mirza Giasuddin 6 MLR (AD) 110, Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals to strike down an illegal order vitiated by violation of the principle of natural justice Constitution of Bangladesh-Article 135-Provides for protection against punishment Article 135 of the Constitution provides for second show cause notice against imposition of penalty of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. When second show cause notice as to proposed penalty is not given that amounts to violation of natural justice by way of denial of constitutional protection rendering the order of dismissal illegal and not sustainable in law which the Administrative Tribunal can well strike down. Director General of Prisons and others vs Md Nasimuddin 6 MLR (AD) 149 = 53 DLR (AD) 30. Section 4- Claim for higher scale of pay when the incumbent has no requisite qualifications-On merger of company with the Government-owned enterprise/Sangstha employees of the merged company are absorbed in their corresponding equivalent posts. When the incumbent employee was temporarily posted in a higher post having no requisite qualification under conditions of her being not entitled to the pay and privilege of the said post and the incumbent employee having continued to serve there for long time by accepting those conditions she did not acquire any legal or vested right and cannot by reason thereof claim promotion and higher scale of pay attached therewith. Syeda Mazeda Khatun vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha 8 MLR (AD) 202 = 55 DLR (AD) 82. Section 4- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reduce the punishment-Doctrine of proportionality is non-existent in Bangladesh jurisdiction--In domestic proceedings the authority is competent to impose penalty upon its employee as it considers appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the nature of allegations in the interest of the organisation which is service-oriented. In administrative justice the doctrine of proportionality is non-existent Administrative Tribunal cannot substitute punishment in place of the one imposed by the employer in exercise of the principle of proportionality. Agrm Bank represented by Its Chairman and others w Khondaker Badruddusa, 9 MLR (AD) 281- 56 DLR (AD) 136 Section 4- Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal to interfere with the order of dismissal passed under Martial Law Order 9 of 1982-Person in the service of the Republic dismissed under the Martial Law Order 9 of 1982 was entiled to put his grievance for reconsideration of the order of dismissal by review forum. Here in the instant case the forum constituted after due consideration rejected the review petition of the petitioner. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal upon taking this aspect into consideration together with the inquiry report of a judge of the Supreme Court and other adverse reports regarding his honesty and integrity found the order of dismissal perfectly justified and thereupon dismissed the appeal which the apex Court affirmed and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal as one having no merit. Hare Krishna Das vs Government of Bangladesh and others 1/ MLR (AD) 146. Sections 4 and 6-Jurisdiction The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal have been established with limited jurisdictions and limited power. The Tribunal gratuitously granting relief acts in excess of its jurisdiction. Quazi Nazrul Islam vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation, 45 DLR (AD) 106 Sections 4 and 6-Law is settled that except on the limited scope a writ petition involving determination of matters relating to term and condition of service of a person in the service of the Republic is not entertainable by the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Khalilur Rahman, ASPSB vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 2005 BLD (AD) 273. Section 4(1)- Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals to determine proportionality of punishment and to interfere with that imposed by the domestic tribunal-It is well within the jurisdiction as provided under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 that the Administrative Tribunals can see the proportionality or punishment and in appropriate case alter the same from major to minor punishment as warranted by ends of justice in view of the nature of the offence the accused is charged with. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 8 MLR (AD) 131 = 55 DLR (AD) 65 Section 4(1)-The remedy against the orders of transfer lies before the Administrative Tribunal and not under Article 102 of the Constitution. Shamsul Haque (Md) vx Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 62. Section 4(2)- Period of Limitation is six months. For the purpose of limitation of moving the Administrative Tribunal against the order of punishment the respondent was entitled to avail of the benefit of the date of the memo communicating result of the appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Md Abdul Karim 47 DLR (AD) 146. Section 4(2)—The Administrative Appellate Tribunal was therefore patently wrong in holding that the limitation could not be counted from 14-9-89 when the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the appellant's application preferred against the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police on 21-10 88. It seems that the Appellate Tribunal being unaware of the aforesaid Ordinances and under some misconception of the provisos above committed error in deciding the point of limitation. Shaikh Mustainal Hoque vs IGP 47 DLR (AD) 157. Section 4(2)—Time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1985 was to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation Jahangir Kabir vs Bangladesh 48 DLR (AD) 156 Section 4(2)Limitation-Time spent under review proceeding-In a case like the present one where there is no provision for appeal and where under review the President has power to make any order as he deems fit, a Government servant will be entitled to the remedy under rule 23. AKM Nurul Alam vs Bangladesh 46 DLR (AD) 113. Section 4(2)- Proviso-jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-Such Tribunal can not entertain any application by the aggrieved party unless his appeal before the competent authority is disposed of. This legal bar cannot be overcome unless the appeal pending before the government is disposed of. It is not known why government respondent is shockingly slow in the matter of taking decision in the petitioner's appeal. The Rule upon the government is therefore made absolute with the direction to dispose of the appeal within 30 days. Moulvi Gholam Moula vs Bangladesh 44 DLR 195. Section 4(2) Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal - Tribunal shall have no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within six months of the impugned order. In the instant suit the impugned order was made 4 years earlier than the date of incorporation of the petitioner bank in the schedule of the Act. Consequently the cause is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That being so, the suit does not come within the mischief of Article 117. DGM Rupali Bank vs Shahjalal 43 DLR 193. Section 4(2)- Since there is no illegality committed when minor penalty is imposed by the Secretary as designated authority upon a Class I government servant without the approval of the President in a proceeding drawn up calling for major penalty. The Administrative Tribunal cannot interfere with such an order of penalty. Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Malek 2 MLR (AD) 48 = 2 BLC (AD) 73 Sections 4(2) and 6(2)-Although the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was barred by 80 days but as the gradation list published in 1984 showed that the appellant did not get his benefits the seniority as per existing rules and in exercising the Court's jurisdiction under Article 104 of the Constitution to do complete justice the case is remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the gradation list, as a valuable right accrued to the appellant in law and fact should not be lost when the delay in filing the case itself by respondent No.1 remains undecided. Raziul Hasan vs Badiuzzaman Khan and others / BLC (AD) 35. Section 4(2)—The first proviso to section 4(2) of the Act is attracted when there is a higher administrative authority to take a decision in respect of an order, etc, to be impugned before the Tribunal and until such decision is taken. As the appellants' representations to Inspector General of Police against the impugned notification issued by the Government were not certainly made to a higher administrative authority, they were entitled to file application against the impugned notification straightaway within six months under the second proviso to section 4(2). Abdul Mannan (Md) and others vs Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others / BLC (AD) 44. Section 4(2)— Invoking the jurisdiction of section 4(2) of the Act it is obligatory for the employee to make his employer, a party to the application or else any decree so drawn will be inexecutable and as the application has to be filed within 6 months from the passing of the Appellate order no amendment could be made after expiry of 6 months as the said Act is a special law. Abdul Naim (Md) vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank and others 1 BLC (AD) 80. Section 4(2)-Proviso-On a reference to Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Rules, 1976, it appears that successive appeals which were filed by the respondent were not addressed to the proper appellate authority and those were also filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application Government of the People's Republie of Bangladesh, represented by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh vs Abdul Latif Chokder 49 DLR (AD) 29, Section 4(2)-When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegraph, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka vs AKM Yousuf Mia & others 50 DLR (AD) 200 Section 4(2)- When the charges against a Government servant are found established and he is given reasonable opportunity of defence and dismissed with the approval of the President, the omission to express the order in the name of the President being mere technicality, the order of dismissal does not call for interference. Shahimur Alam (Md) vs People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR (AD) 211 = 3 MLR (AD) 20. Section 4(2)-As the objection for not impleading the Sonali Bank, the employer of the appellant, as party was taken at the first available opportunity by the respondents and not by the Appellate Tribunal itself and such objection was re-agitated before the Appellate Tribunal who found that the application was not maintainable for which the appellant's submission that the plea of defect of party was taken after 6 years at the appellate stage does not hold good. Abdul Naim vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank, Head Office, Dhaka and others 3 BLC (AD 1 Section 4(2) To seek redress under the Administrative Tribunal Act the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble President which has been pending since 11-1-1996 frustrating any legal remedy that may be available to him for which it is expected that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would place the said appeal before the Hon'ble President within two months from the date of receipt of this order, if already not so placed. Abdur Razzaque Bhuiyan (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Planning Division, and others 2 BLC 369 Section 4(2)- The Rules of the Janata Bank only provide for certain benefits as are admissible to a Government servant. Rule 389 of BSR Part 1 provides that there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer after regaining his health after invalid pension. But the Rule has no legal application to Janata Bank employees. General Manager Janata Bank vs Md Shah Alam Sarker 51 DLR (AD) 138 = 3 MLR (AD) 106. Section 4(2)Section 4(2) of the Act provides that after making of decision by a higher administrative authority under any law for the time being in force a case may be filed by an aggrieved person in the Service of the Republic before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months therefrom. In the instant case, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 17 of the Rules and, as such, he was required to file the case before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months of the dismissal of his appeal. The case filed beyond the period of 6 months is thus barred by limitation. Md Osman Gani vs Government of Bangladesh 17 BLD (AD) 306. Section 4(2)- When no illegality is found to have been committed in the inquiry proceedings and the charges of misconduct and corruption against the delinquent Government Servant are established and the penalty of compulsory retirement awarded by the authority on lenient view, the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to take further lenient view to reduce the penalty of compulsory retirement into stoppage of increment or promotion as the same is opposed to the provision of Rule 4(5) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs vs AM Mansur Ahmed and others 3 MLR (AD) 109 Sections 4(2) and 13-Decree of Civil Court having already been executed after the appellant was reinstated in service, his subsequent prayer for other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal. The Tribunals took a wrong view that the other reliefs are ancillary and consequential reliefs emanating from the decree of the Civil Court and wrongly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. Khandaker Golam Najib vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Agrani Bank and others 49 DLR (AD) 109. Section 4(2)- The representation of respondent having been turned down by the National Board of Revenue, the higher administrative authority in his case, the question of preferring any further appeal does not arise. Government of Bangladesh vs Nurul Haque Miah and another 53 DLR (AD) 59 Section 4(2)-Even if the gradation list has the force of law concerning the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners it would not enable the petitioners to seek remedy under the writ jurisdiction because the Constitution requires them to take recourse to specific remedy as provided in Article 117 of the Constitution before the Administrative Tribunal. Majibur Rahman (Md) and ors vs Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 7 BLC 120. Section 4(2)- With the invalid retirement, the incumbent ceases to be in the service. The question of re-employment on regaining health and becoming fit to resume the duties is a question of fresh appointment and, as such, it is a matter of discretion of the authority. The refusal of the Janata Bank to reappoint any such officer subsequently after invalid pension, does not constitute any cause of action warranting exercise of jurisdiction by the Administrative Tribunal. Rule 389 BSR Part I does not apply to the Janata Bank Employee. General Manager, Janata Bank w Md Shah Alam Sarker 3 MLR (AD) 105 - 51 DLR (AD) 138. Section 4(2)- Fresh proceedings under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 after the first one ending on technical ground, When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegraph, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka vs AKM Yousuf Mia and others 2 MLR (AD) 322 = 50 DLR (AD) 200 Section 4(2)—Effect of Non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings-Under section 4(2) of the said Act the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal can be invoked only by a person in the service of the Republic or in the service of a statutory public authority. In other words, his employer is a necessary party. The officers whom the petitioner made opposite parties in his application may be his appointing authority and appellate authority but the petitioner was not in the service of those officers. Section 2(aa) of the said Act defines "statutory public authority" as those which are described in the Schedule to the said Act. In the Schedule Sonali Bank is mentioned as one of the statutory public authorities. The petitioner was in the service of Sonali Bank and his cause of action is against his employer and not against his appointing authority or appellate authority. They are merely functionaries of his employer. He may or may not make his appointing authority or appellate authority a party to the application under section 4(2), but it is obligatory for him to make his employer a party to the application or else any decree in his favour will be inexecutable, his employer not being bound by the decree. The Board of Directors or the Chairman thereof who is entrusted with the duty of administering the Bank can only execute a decree if the Bank is bound by it. Any application under section 4(2) of the said Act has to be filed within 6 months from the passing of the order in the departmental appeal and after expiry of 6 months no amendment of the application can be made, the said Act being a special law. Mohammad Abdul Naim vs The Chairman, Board of Directors, Sonali Bank Head Office and others. I MLR (AD) 706 - BLC (AD) 80 Section 4(2)-When the order of removal of the respondent was passed on approval of the President, it was optional for the respondent to file a review petition to the President for review of the order. Application instituted within the statutory period of limitation without filing any review petition is quite maintainable. Opinion of the Public Service Commission is not binding upon the authority which can differ with the opinion of the Public Service Commission but in doing so the authority must give reason therefore. Otherwise the contrary decision is not sustainable in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and orhers vs Sved Sakhawat Hossain. 2 MLR (AD) 387 Section 4(2)- First and Second Provisos --Notification by the Government can be challenged straightaway by an aggrieved party before the Administrative Tribunal The First Proviso of section 4(2) of the Act is attracted when there is a higher administrative authority "under any law for the time being in force" to take a decision in respect of any order or action to be impugned before the tribunal. The impugned notification being made by the Government the appellants' representation to the Inspector General of Police cannot be conceived to have been made to any higher administrative authority and, as such, the appellants are entitled to file application against the impugned notification straightaway to the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months under Second Proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act. Md Abdul Mannan and others vs Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others. 1996 BLD (AD) 147 Section 4(2)—When any special statute prescribes specific limitation by express term, sections 5 and 14 of the Act are not applicable. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 in the Second Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act contains clear provision prescribing special limitation for filing application before Tribunal and, as such, the law being a special law with clear legislative intent. No benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act for enlargement of limitation can thus be claimed in respect of filing application before the Tribunal. It is clear from the wording of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act that the legislative intendment behind this provision is to exclude the proceedings governed by the Administrative Tribunal Act from the operation of the benefit conferred by sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act. Abul Bashar vs Investment Corporation of Bangladesh and another 20 BLD (DJ 294 52 DLR (AD) 178. Section (2)- Determination of inter se seniority Inter-se seniority of the Bank officers shall have to be maintained as per the panel prepared on set criteria and promotion test notwithstanding the subsequent change of the Service regulations and their promotion on different dates on the availability of the vacant posts in higher position. Bangladesh Shilpa Bank vs M Anwarul Haque 10 MLR(AD) 14 Section 4(2)- Scope of interference with the order of dismissal of a Government servant on ground of his conviction Article 135(2) of the Constitution requires an authority to consider the conduct of the Government servant that led to his conviction for criminal charge while passing the dismissal order. Non-consideration of the conduct of the Government servant that led to his conviction by the authority renders the dismissal from service not sustainable in law. Again persons of similar footing shall be treated equally. Discrimination offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 27 of the Constitution. Secretary Ministry of Food and others vs Md Nuruzzaman 10 MLR (AD) 97. Section 4(2)—Power of the Administrative Tribunal to strike down illegal order of dismissal-A public servant after having completed 25 years of qualifying service in exercise of option under section 9(1) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 can go on retirement with all pensionary benefits, which unless there is any pending departmental proceeding, the authority cannot refuse to allow. Authority is bound to allow him to go on such tirement. Charge in a departmental proceeding calling for major penalty must be specific and communicated to the accused with statement of allegations. Otherwise, the order of dismissal from service in such proceedings which is drawn long after filing application seeking voluntary retirement being malafide is liable to be set aside. Director-cum-Professor, Pabna Mental Hospital and others vs Tossadek Hosain and others 10 MLR (AD) 110. Section 4(3)- Civilian employees in the Defence Services not being members of any of the Defence Service are holders of civil posts who now have to move the Administrative Tribunal for redress of their grievances and cannot move the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction. Serajul Islam Thakur vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 318. Section 4(3) -Civilian Employees in the Defence Services-Administrative Tribunal was not correct in holding that they belonged to the defence services. Against the mistaken orders the petitioners were at liberty to prefer appeals before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Their applications under the writ jurisdiction are not maintainable. Abdul Latif vs Bangladesh 43 DLR 446. Section 4(3)-- The expression "person in the Defence Services of Bangladesh "Whether includes the petitioners who were employees of the Ordnance Factories Board. Serajul Islam Thakur vs Bangladesh 1993 BLD 53; 46 DLR 318. Tribunal includes Appellate Tribunal-The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. 44 DLR (AD) 111. Tribunal not substitute for, nor co-equal to, High Court Division. There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is [a] substitute [for] or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. 44 DLR (AD) 111. Application by persons of the Bangladesh Rifles.-When the amending Ordinance No. XXIII of 1982 had come into force with retrospective effect from 01-02-1981, the application to the Administrative Tribunal made by persons of the Bangladesh Rifles and pending before it stood abated and to this effect the following provision had been inserted in the said Ordinance of 1982: Abatement of certain applications.-All applications made by a person of the Bangladesh Rifles and pending before a Tribunal shall, on the commencement of this Ordinance, stand abated." When order of the Tribunal be not given effect to only then remedy may be sought.-The petitioner had no reason to be aggrieved for re-statement of a settled principle of law in service matter that seniority may be one of the criteria but not the only criterion for promotion-His leave petition was refused on the ground that his claim for being considered for promotion, on the basis of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal's order dated Ist December, 1985, was awaiting implementation, and if the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was not given effect to then the petitioner might seek remedy before the forum created under Administrative Tribunal Act. (VII of 1981). 44 DLR (AD) BSCD, Vol. VI, p. 7 Transferability or non-transferability being a condition of service comes within the purview of section 4. The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. 42 DLR (AD) 104=BSCD, Vol. VII, p. 5=10 BLD (AD) 71 Jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Janata Bank employees vested in the Tribunal.—The jurisdiction of the civil Court having been vested in the Administrative Tribunal by the promulgation of special statute the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Bank employees has been ousted, and in that view of the matter, the plaint was rightly returned by the civil Court for presentation to the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction. 43 DLR 394. Jurisdiction of Tribunal in case of violation of natural justice and infringement of fundamental rights. The Administrative Tribunal can strike down an order for violation of natural justice and for infringement of fundamental rights but it cannot strike down any bar or rule on the ground of its constitutionality. Duty of court is to see the right given under Article 102(1) is not frittered away or misused. 44 DLR (AD) 111. No gratuitously granting of relief by Tribunal. --The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal have been established with limited jurisdictions and limited power. The Tribunal gratuitously granting relief acts in excess of its jurisdiction. 45 DLR (AD) 106. Civilian employees in the defence services come under the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.-Administrative Tribunal was not correct in holding that the civilian employees in the defence services belonged to the defence services. Against the mistaken orders the petitioners were at liberty to prefer appeals before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Their applications under the writ jurisdiction are not maintainable. 43 DLR 446. For legal remedies in service matters civilian employees in Defence Services can well invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. The terms and conditions of the service of Civilian Employees in Defence Service are governed by the Civilian Employees in Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 and not by the Army. Navy or Air Force Act. Dispute relating to the service the Civilian in Defence Service falls within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals. 51 DLR (AD) 144=3 MLR (AD) 114. Promotion matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals Promotion being part of the terms and conditions of the service a grievance in respect of the same undoubtedly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 50 DLR 39. Tribunal is not competent to direct one authority to obey the other. If one Branch of the Department of the Government is not following the lawful order of the hierarchy of the Governmental authority, definitely the person who is aggrieved can come before this Court and pray for direction or declaration to implement, fulfil or obey the lawful order of the Government which the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to do. 50 DLR 357. Tribunal cannot be moved for implementation of a judgement given in respect of a different person.-Petitioners have not been given any right under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. 49 DLR (AD) 147 Remedy in transfer matter lies before the Tribunal.---The remedy against the orders of transfer lies before the Administrative Tribunal and not under Article 102 of the Constitution. 49 DLR 62. O 12. With first proceeding ended inconclusively, subsequent proceeding not to be interfered with by Tribunal-When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. 50 DLR (AD) 200. Dismissal order omitting the name of the President not to be interfered with by Tribunal. - Where in a departmental enquiry charges are found established by cogent evidence and the accused officer is dismissed from service after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard and after consultation with the Public Service Commission and with the approval of the President, the order of dismissal is not invalid simply by reason of the order not being expressed in the name of the President as required by rule 5 of the Rules of Business, 1975 which is a mere technicality and such it does not call for any interference, 3 MLR (AD) 20-50 DLR (AD) 211. Taking a view by the Tribunals that other reliefs are ancillary and consequential to reinstatement in execution of a decree is a failure of exercising jurisdiction. Decree of Civil Court having already been executed after the appellant was reinstated in service, his subsequent prayer for other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal. The Tribunals took a wrong view that the other reliefs are ancillary and consequential reliefs emanating from the decree of the Civil Court and wrongly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. Appellant was reinstated in service in pursuance of a civil court's decree passed before the commencement of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. The subsequent claim for arrear pay and seniority etc. is not a claim arising out of the cause of action of the civil court decree. Such claim arises out of a fresh cause of action after the Administrative Tribunals Act came into force and for that jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal can well be invoked. 2 MLR (AD 20-49 DLR (AD) 109. Claim of financial benefit during dismissal period may not be considered by Tribunal. There is no inflexible rule that a Government servant reinstated in service after setting aside of dismissal shall in all cases always be allowed financial benefits for the period of dismissal. When the conduct of the delinquent Government servant is found unfair, he cannot be allowed the financial benefits during the period from the date of his dismissal and the date of re-instatent after the dismissal has been set aside on technical ground of procedural defect. 3 MLR (AD) 94=31 DLR (AD) 145. 16. Subsistence allowance during suspension is a matter within Tribunals jurisdiction. Question of payment of subsistence to the government servant during suspension relates to terms and conditions of service within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 52 DLR 333 Before decision by higher administrative authority no application to the Tribunal and no curtailment of service rights and benefits. Unless a final decision is made by higher Administrative Authority after the conclusion of the proceeding under challenge an application cannot be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal, but before such decision to be made by the authority, the right of the petitioner in the service of the Republic and his remuneration cannot be curtailed by the respondent who had no legal authority to do so. Therefore, the departmental proceeding is held to be without any jurisdiction and it must be perished under the wheel of judicial review. 52 DLR 358 Question of transfer to be decided not by Hight Court Division, but by Tribunal.-It is contended that the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 has no jurisdiction under section 4(1) to decide the question of transfer and that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution is negatived by the expression "action taken in relation to him as person in the service of Republic” which includes the order of transfer as the order of transfer is made in relation to a person of the Republic for which the writ petition fails on the ground of maintainability and the remedy lies before the Adjinistrative Tribunal. 1 BLC 93. High Court Division for enforcement of fundamental right and Tribunal for relief in service matter. A terminated officer of the Investment Corporation of Bangladesh can invoke writ jurisdiction directly for striking down any statute or rules framed thereunder for enforcement of his fundamental right, but if he can obtain full relief from the Administrative Tribunal without striking down the statute or rules then the writ petition would be incompetent and as the grounds urged for declaring the Regulation 56(2) of the Corporation [unconstitutional] are grounds connected with two laws, not with fundamental rights, the remedy lies before the Administrative - Tribunal. 1 BLC (AD) 77, For doing complete justice, case is remanded to the Tribunal.-Although the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was barred by 80 days but as the gradation list published in 1984 showed that the appellant did not get his benefits of the seniority as per existing rules and in exercising the Court's jurisdiction under Article 104 of the Constitution to do complete justice the case is remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the gradation list as a valuable right accrued to the appellant in law and fact should not be lost, when the delay in filing the case itself by respondent No. 1 remains undecided. I BLC (AD) 35 Subordinate Courts are not subject to the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal in service matter. Since the Subordinate Courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court only and the Judges function under the superintendence and control of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court, they are not subject to jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for any matter with respect to their service and other ancillary matters including magistrates performing judicial functions, as they are performing sovereign functions of the State specified under the Constitution 2 BLC 444. Who can make application to the Tribunal?-According to sub-section (2) only a person in the service of the Republic and of sheduled public authorities may make an application to an Administrative Tribunal. This means that no person other than a person who is in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority and a person who is or has retired, or is dismissed, removed or discharged, can make an application Even their heirs could not make applications. Whereas, according to the Indian Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985, the heirs of the government servants can make applications when the Act says, "... a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal... In this context, our High Court Division in a case observed. The Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application filed by a person who is or who has aot been in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority specified in the Schedule of the Act. The term "person aggrieved" as used in our Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has narrower connotation than that of the similar term used in the counterpart enactment of the Indian Jurisdiction. The legal heirs of the deceased servant thus cannot maintain an application before the Administrative Tribunal A person who died while in service cannot be dismissed or discharged or removed from service. Therefore the legal heirs of the deceased servant who are legally entitled to the pensionary benefits can seek their remedies in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division. This was the position before 19 November 1997. 2 MLR (HC) 83 But the legal or statutory position as to whether the heirs of persons in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority as scheduled in our Act has changed since then. The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act No. XXIV of 1997), which received assent of the President on 19 November 1997 has provided for, and inserted by way of amendment to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980, among others, a provision bearing the marginal heading "Death of the applicant" wherein it is said that only the heirs of the applicants before the Tribunal whose services are pensonable shall have the right to sue before the Tribunal. So, it may be observed that our provision in this regard is not so wide and all comprehensive as the Indian one. Question as to whether a person is a government servant or not to be decided by civil Court, not by Tribunals. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents claiming themselves to be government servants and challenged the order directing them to apply for giving appointment afresh. Although the defendant contested the suit but could not prove his case as the prayer for shifting the date of hearing was refused and the suit was decreed and on appeal the appellate Court sent the case on remand to the trial Court giving the defendant a chance to prove his case holding that civil Court had jurisdiction to try he suit and the High Court Division endorsed the said view in civil revision, Since the petitioner could not get any opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court, it is the trial Court who will decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity io the defendant to adduce evidence and will also consider afresh the issue to the maintainabiley of the suit in civil Court because of the plea of under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 2 BLC () 124. 25. When grounds of challenge cognizable by the Tribunal, jurisdiction of High Court Division excluded. As the matter being one relating to the terms and conditions of service, the jurisdiction of the High Court Division is excluded when the grounds of challenge to the impugned dismissal order were such as were fully cognizable by the Administrative Tribunal. 3 BLC (AD) 45. Invoking of jurisdiction whether of the High Court Division or of the Tribunal.-If the eligible person is not considered for promotion, in such case the aggrieved person can enforce his right by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court Division as such right cannot be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. 7 BLC 44. Remedy as to gradation list though having the force of law lies before the Tribunal.-Even if the gradation list has the force of law concerning the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners it would not enable the petitioners to seek remedy under the writ jurisdiction because the Constitution requires them to take recourse to specific remedy as provided in Article 117 of the Constitution before the Administrative Tribunal. 7 BLC 120. Jurisdiction of Labour Court and of Administrative Tribunal.- Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Jurisdiction with regard to an employee of the Railway Board - The respondent's petition before the Labour Court relates to terms and conditions of his service - In view of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 the Administrative Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and consequently the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 8 BLD (HCD) 125. Administrative Tribunal being an exclusive forum does not need the umbrella of writ jurisdiction for implementation of its tecision-Extent of its authority and ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts - The Constitution uses the word Court to mean any Court of law including the Supreme Court. Not to speak of any other Court even the Supreme Court is constitutionally debarred from exercising any jurisdiction over any matter covered by the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal-The Constitution of People's Republic of Bangladesh has designated the Administrative Tribunal as an exclusive forum-The Tribunal does not need the umbrella of this Court's writ jurisdiction for implementation of its decisions, The Administrative Tribunals Act ought to be interpreted in such a manner that it is consistent with the constitutional provision and the legislative intent and that it may provide for a complete and self-sufficient remedy to the affected parties. 10 BLD (HCD) 205-41 DLR 538. Administrative Tribunal being an effective body and the sole arbiter armed with the fullest jurisdiction to devise its own method and procedure on all questions and problems relating to execution of its decisions and orders. -How the Tribunal will execute its own decisions and orders is very much a matter within the exclusive and unencroachable jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself—The Administrative Tribunal is the sole arbiter of the method and procedure with regard to the execution of its decisions and orders-It will follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution of a decree as far as practicable, but as and when it is not practicable to do so, the Tribunal has the fullest jurisdiction to devise its own method and procedure to execute its decisions-The legislature has armed the Tribunal to be an effective body and it need not be told by the writ Court as to the provisions that it may require to apply for execution of its decision--if it is wrong in its decision, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal will correct it--All questions and problems relating to execution will have to be resolved by the Administrative Tribunal or the Administrative Appellate Tribunal within the periphery of the Act and the Rules. 10 BLD (HCD) 205-41 DLR 538. With the establishment of Administrative Tribunal civil Court vrases to have any jurisdiction to try any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. - When an Administrative Tribunal is set 2 no court shall entertain any proceeding or make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal. When by a statute an authority is vested in another Tribunal with exclusive power over any subject matter, a civil Court ceases to have any jurisdiction to try such suit having jurisdiction. 11 BLD (HCD) 23 No amendment as to impleading party to an application after expiry of 6 months. In an application filed under section 4(2), the employer of the petitioner in the Sonali Bank is a necessary party without impleading which the proceeding is not maintainable. Such application must be made within 6 months from the passing of the order in departmental appeal. The Act is a special law and as such no amendment application can also be made after expiry of six months. I MLR (AD) 106=1 BLC (AD) 80. Order passed in the enquiry procedure not be interfered with by the Tribunal.-The limitation in respect of an application under section 4 of the Act commences from the date of communication of the order of penalty or the order of the appellate authority. The settled law is that a departmental proceeding on the self-same allegation against an employee is competent besides a case in the court of law. When there is no lapse in the enquiry procedure, the order passed therein cannot be interfered with merely on technical ground. I MLR (AD) 310. Question of transferability is within the jurisdiction of Tribunal.- The question of transferability being one of the terms of service falls within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. When efficacious remedy is available in competent forum the writ jurisdiction of High Court Division is ousted. 1 MLR (HC) 52. 35. Tribunals not to interfere with imposition of minor penalty in a case initiated with a charge for major penalty. -Since there is no illegality committed when minor penalty is imposed by the Secretary as designated authority upon a class I Government servant without the approval of the President in a proceeding drawn up calling for major penalty, the Administrative Tribunal cannot interfere with such an order of penalty, 2 MLR (AD) 48. Tribunals have no jurisdiction a question of constitutionality of any law.-Administrative Tribungi has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service including seniority and promotion of the person in the service of the Republic. When the dispute involves determination of the constitutionality of any law or any notification the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted. In such a case this mixed question of dispute can well be decided by the High Court Division in its writ jurisdiction under article 102 of the Constitution. 2 MLR (AD) 257 Question of framing charge by competent authority or not is a question of fact, so Appellate Division not to interfere with Tribunal's decision thereon.-Charge in a departmental proceedings was framed upon the direction of the competent authority. Whether or not the charge was framed by the competent authority is a question of fact. When the Administrative Appellate Tribunal decided the said issue on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and in reference to the record of the proceedings, there was practically no reason for the Appellate Division to interfere with such decision. 2 MLR (AD) 382. Dispute relating to re-employment does not fall within the jurisdiction of Tribunal-As soon as a servant goes on invalid retirement he ceases to be in service. Subsequently on recovery of health his case of re employment is a case of fresh employment which is absolutely in the discretion of the authority. Since re-employment does not relate to any terms of the person in the service, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be invoked in such matter. Rule 389, BSR, Part I does not apply to the employees of the Janata Bank. 3 MLR (AD) 105. Reduction of minimum penalty not within jurisdiction of Tribunal.-Where in an enquiry charges of corruption and misconduct are established, the minimum penalty prescribed under rule 4(5) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 is compulsory retirement. There is no scope in law to reduce the penalty of compulsory retirement into one of stoppage of increment or promotion: 3 MLR (AD) 109. Jurisdiction of Tribunal and of High Court Division. The dismissal from service being one of the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic, the remedy related therewith lies in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division An order of dismissal so long not communicated to the employee concerned is not a valid order. In order to make the order effective, the legal requirement is the communication and not the actual date of receipt of the same. Order of dismissal passed under MLO 9 but communicated after repeal of the M.L.O is not a valid order. When the petitioner lost in the Administrative Tribunal as well as in the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, he could pursue his remedy by preferring appeal before the Appellate Division and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division. When the petitioner contested the election to the Parliament accepting severance of his relation to his service cadre he cannot subsequently seek for his reinstatement in service because law does not permit a person to enjoy double advantages. The High Court Division cannot direct the Government to grant promotion to an employee. 3 MLR (AD) 121. Exclusive jurisdiction of Tribunals to the exclusion of all other courts.-Administrative Tribunal has been yested with exclusive jurisdiction under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to decide all disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all other courts by article 117 of the Constitution. Remedy against the transfer of a class II! employee from one station to another being relatable to the terms and conditions of service, lies in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and not in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution 4 MLR (AD) 12. Dispute as to pension falls within jurisdiction of Tribunal. Pension is one of the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of the Republic or statutory bodies included in the Schedule of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. Administrative Tribunals have been vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide dispute relating to pension with the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all other courts as envisaged by article 117 of the Constitution. 4 MLR (AD) 89. Opportunity to rectify the defects in the application to the Tribunal be given before rejecting the same.-As provided under rule 3(8) before rejecting an application, the applicant shall be given an opportunity to rectify the defects of the Application. It is true that question of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, but the objection as to the defect of parties must be raised at the earliest opportunity so that the applicant gets an opportunity to meet the objection. In appropriate case differential view may be taken. A person in the service of the Republic while making an application should follow the procedure under article 146 of the Constitution, otherwise he shall run the risk. 4 MLR (AD) 115 An order of dismissal in pursuance of the rules of procedure does not call for interference by Tribunal. When it has been found by the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal that the enquiry into the charge against the petitioner, an officer of Sonali Bank, was held in accordance with the rules of procedure and there was no denial of opportunity of defence and no violation of the principle of natural justice, the order of dismissal of the petitioner passed in pursuance thereof does not call for any interference. 4 MLR (AD) 401. The Administrative Tribunals Act being a special statute is not subject to the Limitation Act being a general statute.—Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 provides for limitation in express terms for filing application within 6 months. This law being special statute prevails over the Limitation Act. 1908 and as such section 14 does not apply to application under section 4(2) of the Act. 5 MLR (AD) 327. Jurisdiction of civil Court ousted in service matters. As provided by article 117 of the Constitution, Administrative Tribunals are vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide matters relating to the terms and conditions etc. of the service of the Republic and other services of the statutory bodies included in the Schedule of the Act ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court. In that view of the matter Civil Court has no jurisdiction in such matters. 7 BLD (HCD) 44: il BLD (HCD) 23. Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief. - The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. 49 DLR (AD) 44 There being no higher administrative authority aggrieved person can go straightway before the Tribunal to redress his grievance. -Notification by the Government can be challenged by an aggrieved party straightway before the Tribunal. The first proviso of Section 4(2) of the Act is attracted when there is a higher administrative authority to take decision in respect of any order or action to be impugned before the tribunal. In the instant case, there being no higher administrative authority to redress their grievance the appellants are entitled to challenge the impugned notification straightway before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 morths under second proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act. 16 BLD (AD) 147. On limitation matter Review time to be excluded from limitation period. Time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1985 was to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation. 48 DLR (AD) 156. Date of Memo communicating the appeal result to be taken advantage of.--- For the purpose of limitation of moving the Administrative Tribunal against the order of punishment the respondent was entitled to avail of the benefit of the date of the Memo communicating result of the appeal. 47 DLR (AD) 145. Point of limitation would be the date when application preferred against the appellate order rejected. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal was therefore patently wrong in holding that the limitation could not be counted from 14-9-1989 when the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the appellant's application preferred against the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police on 21- 10-1988. It seems that the Appellate Tribunal being unaware of the aforesaid Ordinances and under some misconception of the provisos above committed error in deciding the point of limitation. 47 DLR (AD) 157. Time spent in preferring appeals to wrong forum not to be considered.-On a reference to Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976, it appears that successive appeals which were not addressed to the proper appellate authority and those were also filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 49 DLR (AD) 29. Section 14 of the Limitation Act not entertained by Tribunal. - The petitioner cannot have the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation in filing application before the Administrative Tribunal. 52 DLR (AD) 178. No amendment in application after expiry of six months.--In invoking the jurisdiction of section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act it is obligatory for the employee to make his employer a party to the application or else any decree so drawn will be inexecutable and as the application has to be filed within 6 months from the passing of the appellate order no amendment could be made after expiry of 6 months as the said Act is a special law. / BLC (AD) 30-1 MER (AD) 106. With departmental appeal having been barred, application thereon not maintainable before Tribunal.-As the petitioner's departmental appeal being barred and there being no decision of any higher administrative, authority in respect of the impugned order dated 20-5-86, the petitioner's application before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation as well as not maintainable 2 BLC (AD) 118. Section 14 of the Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings before Tribunal.- Although the petitioner filed various cases before filing the present Tribunal case but section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. 2 BLC (AD) 118. With application made within time limit, no illegality or wrong committed by the Tribunals.-Considering the legal position the Administrative Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director General. No illegality or wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. 6 BLC (AD) 94. As to limitation for filing departmental appeals.—The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 does not provide for any period of limitation for filing Departmental Appeals from Departmental orders - These are provided for in the relevant Service Regulations of various Statutory Authorities. 14 BLD (AD) 5. Application shall have to be made within the limitation period.- An Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by any person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory authority in respect of the terms and conditions of his service or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a person in such service but such an application shall have to be made within 6 months of the making or taking the impugned order or action. 14 BLD (AD) 17. Case filed beyond 6 months barred by limitation. After the petitioner's appeal under Rule 17 of the Govt. Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was dismissed by the appellate authority he was required to file the case before the Administrative Tribunal within 6 months of the disposal of his appeal. Case filed beyond the period of 6 months must be held to be barred by limitation. 17 BLD (AD) 306. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act excluded from operation in Tribunal's case. It is clear from the wording of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act that the legislative intendment behind this provision is to exclude the proceedings governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act from the operation of the benefit conferred by sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act. 20 BLD (AD) 294. Application not filed within six months barred by limitation.-An application under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 shall have to be filed before the Administrative Tribunal within six months from the date of making or taking decision by the departmental higher authority. When not filed within the statutory period, such an application is barred by limitation. 2 MLR (AD) 51. Re-employment on regaining health after invalid pension not available to bank employees. — The Rules of the Janata Bank only provide for certain benefits as are admissible to a Government servant. Rule 389 of BSR Part I provides that there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer after regaining his health after invalid pension. But the Rule has no legal application to Janata Bank employees. 51 DLR (AD) 138. Decision by higher administrative authority on representation amounts to decision on appeal. -The representation of respondent having been turned down by the National Board of Revenue, the higher administrative authority in his case, the question of preferring any further appeal does not arise. 53 DLR (AD) 59. In the absence of direction for reinstatement, order of declaratory nature by Tribunal not executable.-Order passed by the Tribunal is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such order passed by the Tribunal is not executable 54 DLR (AD) 5. Plea of defect of party taken at the first available opportunity re-agitated before the Appellate Tribunal. As the objection for not impleading the Sonali Bank, the employer of the appellant, as party was taken at the first available opportunity by the respondents and not by the Appellate Tribunal itself and such objection was re-agitated before the Appellate Tribunal who found that the application was not maintainable for which the appellant's submission that the plea of defect of party was taken after 6 years at the appellate stage does not hold good. 3 BLC (ADI. Question of physical disability or wilful absence in duties is one of fact and to be decided by Tribunal, not High Court Division. -An absentee employee is not entitled to get subsistence allowance. Whether the petitioner suffered physical disability and became unable to attend his duties or he wilfully remained absent from performing his duties are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 5 BLC 606 Appeal against Comptroller and Auditor General's order lies to the President.--The Administrative Tribunals Act is prospective and not retrospective. It does not apply to the case of removal from service made before the Act came into force. The Comptroller and Auditor General holds constitutional position and as such the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is not the Appellate authority in respect of an order passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I MLR (AD) 393. Subsequent proceeding not barred and not amounted to double jeopardy.--When the first departmental proceeding ended merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on self-same or fresh additional charge is not barred in law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy. 2 MLR (AD) 322. Employer is a necessary party to an application before Tribunal.-In an application filed under section 4(2), the employer of the petitioner in the Sonali Bank is a necessary party without impleading which the proceeding is not maintainable. Such an application must be made within 6 months from the passing of the order in departmental appeal. The Administrative Tribunals Act is a special law and as such no amendment application can also be made after expiry of six months. I MLR (AD) 106 = BLC (AD) 80. None to get relief from an order in a case in which he was not a party-An applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal unless he approached his departmental higher authority and such higher authority has given a decision on the dispute, In a case of seniority, other persons likely to be affected by the decision must be made parties to the proceedings. The applicant cannot seek relief by way of enforcement of an order of the Court in which he was not a party, 2 MLR (AD) 89 Opinion of Public Service Commission though not binding upon Government, but when sought decision contrary thereto without giving reasons not sustainable in law. When order of removal from service is passed on the approval of the President it is optional for the aggrieved Government servant either to file application for review or he can straightway file an application before the Administrative Tribunal within the statutory period of !imitation. Opinion of the Public Service Commission is not binding upon the Government, but when taking a contrary decision the authority must give reasons, otherwise such decision will not be sustainable in law. 2 MLR (AD) 387. Dismissal not to be set aside merely on wrong noting of the Rules.- Where in a departmental enquiry charges are established by cogent evidence and the penalty of dismissal from service is passed by the competent authority, the dismissal order cannot be set aside merely on the ground of inadvertently wrong noting of the year of the Rules in the order of dismissal. 3 MLR (AD) 96. Departmental authority not bound by the findings of inquiry officer.-The departmental authority is not bound by the findings of the inquiry officer. It can take different decision on the basis of the materials on record. When negligence of duty falling within the definition of misconduct on the part of the petitioner was well proved, the authority was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty of censure and recovery of the loss caused by the delinquent petitioner. Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong in upholding the penalty, 6 MLR (AD) 66. Remedy available in the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sought by writ petition. When the petitioner contested the case before the Tribunal and has not preferred any appeal and when he had a remedy before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, writ petition was rightly rejected. 53 DLR (AD) 1/2. Decision being coram non judice, ie not given by three members, is a nullity, Although hearing may be continued by the two other members if any member is unable to attend any of its sitting, the judgment in the case must be delivered by the three members. Judgment delivered by two members is a nullity being coram non judice: 3 MLR (AD) 201=3 BLC (AD) 155. Decision of High Court Division is binding upon Appellate Tribunal.-The High Court Division having held that the decision of the two-member Tribunal was a nullity because the Tribunal was coram non judice, it was clear that the writ jurisdiction of High Court Division was attracted and it was not anymore open for the Appellate Tribunal to pronounce that the judgment of the High Court Division was passed without jurisdiction. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal cannot sit over the judgment of the High Court Division. The High Court Division is vested with constitutional jurisdiction to interpret the law and its judgment is binding upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal as well. 3 MLR (AD) 201 = 3 BLC (AD) 155. High Court Division is entitled to exercise its power of judicial review of decisions by Appellate Tribunal.- The Appellate Tribunal seems to be totally unaware of the settled law that notwithstanding the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court Division by any legislative provision or even under Article 102 itself, the High Court Division is yet entitled to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 102 if the action complained of before the High Court Division is found to be coram non judice, without jurisdiction or taken malafide. 3 BLC (AD) 155. Aggrieved person and necessary party. Although there is no guidance in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have got very limited application to a case before the Administrative Tribunal, but still then as a general rule all necessary parties must be impleaded so that the tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it. Since the appellants are claiming relief against the Government alone, the case cannot be held to be bad for defect of parties for nonimpleading respondent Nos. 1-15. But since the order of the Tribunal was likely to prejudice them in the matter of their seniority they are "aggrieved' persons within the meaning of Section 6(2) of the Act. 16 BLD (AD) 147 Section 5 of Limitation Act has no application to the limitation period as provided in this section. Limitation as provided under section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has to be strictly followed. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has no manner of application to the limitation in matters as provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. There is no scope to enlarge the period of limitation and reckon the same from the date of knowledge. The person not party to the proceeding if aggrieved can seek remedy in appropriate forum but not by way of appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. 6 MLR (AD) 173. Writ jurisdiction in such matter as within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal ousted.-Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 provides for appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and in such matter the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division is clearly ousted as envisaged under article 117 of the Constitution. 6 MLR (AD) 181. Government not preferring appeal cannot deny the right of appeal to others aggrieved.-Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including those of Order 1 except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to apply to the Tribunal but as a general rule all the necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a Tribunal may effectually adjudicate it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of ASP and it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees for which it cannot be said that the case was bad for defect of parties but the respondent Nos. 1-15 are aggrieved within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act and when the Government did not prefer any appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal the right of appeal cannot be denied to them. I BLC (AD) 44. Relief has to be claimed against the proper party -As the impugned notification has been issued by the Ministry of Home but it is a notification of the Government and therefore relief has to be claimed against the proper party, namely, Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as Article 146 of the Constitution provides that the Government of Bangladesh may sue or be sued by the name of Bangladesh. But the petitioners before the Tribunal are generally either careless or not properly advised and no emphasis is given on such defect as it was not raised heretofore and as the decision is going to turn on the merit of the case. BLC (AD) 44. When the opposite parties admit the relief, the Appellate Tribunal need not go into any other question.—When the petitioners admitted in their written objection that the principle of natural justice demanded that their appointments should have been regularised, their appointments could not be cancelled unilaterally and in such circumstances the Appellate Tribunal need not have gone into the question as to whether the circular in question was only for executive guidance with no statutory force. 4 BLC (AD) 221. Section 5-Administrative Tribunal whether it can be termed a Court There are tribunals with many of the trappings of a Court which nevertheless are not Courts in the strict sense of exercising judicial power. An Administrative Tribunal may act judicially, but still remain and Administrative Tribunal as distinguished from a Court. Per MH Rahman J, per Mustafa Kamal J (agreeing). The parliament was granted the legislative power to establish one or more Administrative Tribunals, not Courts. Chapter I and Chapter II of Part VI deal with settlement of disputes through Courts. Chapter II with Administrative justice i.e: settlement of disputes though the mechanism of Administrative Tribunals. A Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court, but it is not a Court proper. Mujibar Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 192 Section 5—There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for carrying out of the functions of the Tribunals. Per MH Rahman J, per Mustafa Kamal J (agreeing). The Administrative Tribunal has not stepped into the shoes of the High Court Division and it was not established at the cost of High Court Division, like India. The High Court Division did not lose any thing which was constitutionally of its own. The Administrative Tribunal is not exercising the jurisdictions of the High Court Division as its constitutional successor. It is exercising a jurisdiction of its own in its own right, not by taking away of the High Court's pre-existing jurisdiction by a constitutional amendment, as laid down in the original Constitution itself. It does not possess the power of judicial review at all. It has no powers analogous to Article 102 of the Constitution, Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Section 5- Under the new dispensation that Article 103 of the Constitution shall apply in relation to Administrative Appellate Tribunal the petitioners have only the right to seek leave for appeal. The Court's power under clause 3 of Article 103 is very wide-question of retrospectivity or prospectivity of section 6A of the Act of 1981 has got no relevance. Bangladesh Bank ys Administrative Tribunal 44 DLR (AD) 239. Section 5- The High Court Division having held that the decision of the two member Tribunal was a nullity because the Tribunal was coram non judice, it was clear that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division was attracted and it was not anymore open for the Appellate Tribunal to pronounce that the judgment of the High Court Division was passed without jurisdiction. Shaheda Khatun vs Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka & ors 3 BLC (AD) 155. Section 6- Though during the hearing if any member of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is unable to attend any of ils sittings the hearing may be continued with the other two members as provided by section 1A. This does not necessarily mean and imply that the two members of the Appellate Tribunal permitted to deliver the judgment. The terms "hear and determine mean that the decision must be given by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal with all its three members. When judumant is delivered by two of its member it is a judgment of Individuals and the Tribunal being corum non judice. its decision is a nullity. Sections 6- Law is settled that except on the limited scope a writ petition involving determination of matters relating to tem condition of Service of a person in the service of the Republic is not entertainable by the High Court Division under Article 192 of the Constitution. Khalilur Rahman, ASPS8 w Add Kamrul Ahsan and others 2005 BLD (AD) 273, Section 6(1) seen from the provision of section 6/1 of the Administrative Tribunal Act that an appeal lies from an ander of the Administrative Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Tribunal refused the prayer for ad-interim order restraining the authority from granting promotion to the respondents. So the respondent Nos. 1-11 berein if were aggrieved by the order so pamed by the Administrative Tribunal they were required as per provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act to file appeal, if any, they would have thought fit. But instead of doing that they were not well advised o file the writ petition seeking the relief identical to the relief sought in tho Administrative Tribunal case with the sole object of having an ad-interim order restraining the authority from taking steps for the promotion of the Assistant Superintendent of Police to the past of Additional Superintendent of Police. Whabibur Ralmar, ASP SB, Dhaka And Kamru. Al 10 BLC (AD) 193 Section 2-Provides for appeal within specified period of limitation The law on limitation as to appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is well settled The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 is a self contained special statute providing for procedure and limitation therein which have superseding effect over all other common laws inconsistent therewith. In that view and also in view of long line of decisions of apex courts section of the Limitation Act, 1908 has no manner of application as to the proceedings under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. There is no room to interpret the provision of sub-section (2A) of section 6 so as to extend the period of limitation or count the same from the date of knowledge of those persons who are affected by the order impugned but not made parties thereto. It is hold that in such a case the person aggrieved may seek relief in some other appropriate forum but not by way of appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. The impugned order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal being perfectly in consonance with the relevant law does not suffer from any legal infinity calling for any interference. Md Giasuddin Ahmed and others vs Md Sirajul Islam and others 6 MLR R (AD) 173. Section 6(2)-Aggrieved person and necessary parties. There appears to be no guidance either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including those of Order I, except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to apply to the Tribunal. But still then as a general rule it cannot be disputed that all necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of ASPs and they are seeking relief against the Government alone it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees and, as such, it cannot be said that the case is bad for defect of parties for not impleading respondent Nos. 1-15. Respondent Nos. 1-15 nevertheless, are 'aggrieved persons within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act in that the order of the Tribunal was likely to be prejudicial to them in the matter of seniority. Their right of appeal cannot, therefore, be denied. Md Abdul Mannan and others vs Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others 1996 BZD CAD 127. 2 MLR (HC) 83 Section 6(2)—Appeal against judgment of Administrative Tribunal--- Special limitation Limitation Act 1908-Section 5 has no manner of application—Limitation as provided under section 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has to be strictly followed. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 has no manner of application to the limitation in matierials as provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. There is no scope to enlarge the period of limitation and reckon the same from the date of knowledge. The person not party to the proceeding if aggrieved can seek remedy in appropriate forum but not by way of appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Giasuddin Ahmed (Md) and others vs Serajul Islam and others 6 MLR (AD) 173.2 MLR (HC) 83 Section 6(2)-Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including those of Order I except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to apply to the Tribunal but as a general rute all the necessary parties must be implended in a case so that a Tribunal may effectually adjudicate it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of ASP and it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees for Wh which it cannot be said that the case was bad for defect of parties but the respondent Nos. 1-15 are aggrieved within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act and when the Government did not prefer any appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the right of appeal cannot be denied to them. Abdul Mannan (Md) and others v Hasan Mahmud Khandker and others BLC (AD) 44 Section 6(2)-As the impugned notification has been issued by the Ministry of Home but it is a notification of the Government and therefore relief has to be claimed against the proper party, namely, Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as Article 146 of the Constitution provides that the Government of Bangladesh may sue or be sued by the name of Bangladesh. But the petitioners before the Tribunal are generally either careless or not properly advised and no emphasis is given on such defect as it was not raised heretofore and as the decision is going to turn on the merit of the case. Abdul Mannan (Md) and others vs Hasan Mahmud I BLC (AD) 44. Sections 6(2) and 4(2)-Although the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was barred by 80 days but as the gradation list published in 1984 showed that the appellant did not get his benefits of the seniority as per existing rules and in exercising the Court's jurisdiction under Article 104 of the Constitution to do complete justice the case is remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to reconsider the gradation list, as a valuable right accrued to the appellant in law and fact should not be lost when the delay in filing the case itself by respondent No.i remains undecided Rasiul Hasan vs Badiuzzaman Khan and others BLC (AD) 35 Section 6(3)-The Administrative Appellate Tribunal took into consideration all aspects of the matter and in view of the provisions of section 6(3) it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for altering the major penalty of dismissal from service to reduction in rank Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others vs Md Idrish Miah 58 DLR (AD) 55 Section 63)-When the petitioners admitted in their written objection that the principle of natural justice demanded that their appointments should have been regularised, their appointments could not be cancelled unilaterally and in such circumstances the Appellate Tribunal need not have gone into the question as to whether the circular in question was only for executive guidance with no statutory force. Government of Bangladesh, & others vs Md Abdul Malek Miah and others 4 BLC (AD) 221. Section 6(3)-The Administrative Appellate Tribunal took into consideration all aspects of the matter and in view of the provisions of section 6(3) it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to altering the major penalty of dismissal from service to reduction in rank. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others vs Md Idrish Miah 58 DLR (AD) 55. Section 6A-Under the new dispensation that Article 103 of the Constitution shall apply in relation to Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners have only the right to seek leave for appeal. The Court's power under clause 3 of Article 103 is prospective of section 6A of the Act of 1981 has got relevance. Bangladesh Bank vs Administrative Appellate Tribunal 44 DLR (AD) 239. Section 6A-The Appellate Tribunal seems to be totally unaware of the settled law that notwithstanding the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court Division by any legislative provision or even under Article 102 itself the High Court Division is yet entitled to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 102 if the action complained of before the High Court Division is found to be coram non judice, without jurisdiction or taken malafide. Shaheda Khatun 3As: Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka & ors 3 BLC (AD) 155. Section 6A-In the instant case PSC recommended for regularisation of the opposite parties No. 3-86 on 28-1-1998 and thereupon the said opposite parties became the members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Enforcement: Police Cadre) and that being so in law they can only claim seniority in the Cadre Service on and from 28-1-1998 and no other date. Khalilur Rahman (Md) PPM and others vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 8 BLC (AD) 80. Section 9 One of the general meanings of the word 'obstruct' is to impede, hinder or retard, and in its legal sense of obstructing process under law, it means to commit the punishable offence of intentionally hindering the officers of the law in the execution of their duties. Mere obstruction, therefore, does not carry the meaning or any idea of use of force. Nazim vs State AIR 1957 (All) 829). Section 9-The word 'obstruction' in section 186 connotes some overt act in the nature of violence or show of violence. It cannot be said that man obstructs another if that man runs away from arrest, or if he does not actually submit to the arrest. Phudhki vs State 1955 CWN 278. Section 9-The word "obstruction" in section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has to be construed in its narrow sense so as to confine it to an act of physical obstacle, use of force or threatened use of force, a deliberate hurdle preventing an officer from exercising function of discharging duties, and it would not include mere failure to submit an information or to produce books of account. Masco Private Ltd vs ESI Corporation (1975) I. LLJ 29. Sections 10 and 12—Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12—Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No, SRO 92-L/82-JIV/IT-3/81 dated 12- 3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538. Section 10A-Orders given by Administrative Appellate Tribunal Maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of such order. The Administrative Tribunal can execute, functioning as an executing Court, its own decisions or orders and also the decisions and orders of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal following the provisions of Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of a decree. The petitioner has been given a further remedy by way of punishment for contempt of the Tribunal's authority. The petitioner having failed to exhaust such remedies his writ petition is not maintainable. Munshi Mozammet Hossain w Post Master, Faridpur 43 DLR 415 Section 10A- To remove the irregularities and to institute a fresh inquiry against the petitioner on the self-same charges the Government action suspending the petitioner from the date of dismissal is fully covered by the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Rules 1985 and the respondents have not acted in wilful and contemptuous disregard of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal Jane Alam Khan vs Abdul Hamid Chowdhury and anr 3 BLC (AD) 55. Section 10A-The well established principle is that the Court shall not impose a sentence for contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. Mahbubor Rahman Sikdar vs Mujihor Rahman Sikdar 35 DLR (AD) 203 Executive arm of the Government should not be allowed to attack and deface the honour, majesty and independence of the judicial organ of the State. Abdul Karim Sarker vs State 38 DLR (AD) 188. When dignity and authority of the Court is trampled and transgressed, Court cannot be a silent spectator to this state of affairs. Tahera Nargis vs DIG of Prisons Dhaka 41 DLR 508. LR 508 Person circulating and publishing contemptuous matters is guilty of contempt. State vs Lakitullah. 10 DLR 309 Scandalisation of Judges that they acquired property by improper means constitute gross contempt of Court. State vs Eras Mahmood 23 DER (Lah.) 41. Filing a suit containing contemptuous allegations against a Judge constitutes contempt of Court. State vs Abdul Mazid Munshi 33 DLR 220. Lawyer's responsibility who are an integral part of the Court to uphold the dignity and prestige of the Court. State vs Abdul Majid Munshi 33 DLR 220. Plaint which contained scandalous allegations against the District and Session Judge and filing of that suit as well as the appeal against the judgment in that suit, all constitute contempt of Court. State vs Abdul Majid Munshi 33 DLR 220. There is never any risk of judicial hypersensitivity. The very nature of the judicial function makes judges sympathetic and responsive. Their very training blesses them with insensitivity, as opposed to hypersensitivity. Judges are always seeking good reasons to explain wrong conduct. They know there are always two sides to a coin. They neither give nor take offence because they deal with persona and situations impersonally, though with understanding. Judges more than others realise the foibles, the frustrations, the under-currents and the tensions of litigant and litigation. But as elsewhere, lines have to be drawn. The strains and mortification of litigation cannot be allowed to lead litigants to tarnish, terrorise and destroy the system of administration of justice by vilification of judges. It is not that judges need be protected: Judges may well take care of themselves. It is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that has to be protected. Abdul Karim vs State 38 DLR (AD) 188. The Courts in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of contempt will not be unduly touchy or sensitive to punish even technical or trifling interferences, But whenever it appears to a Court, probable that the offending publication will substantially interfere with a fair trial, it becomes its duty to protect litigants resorting to Courts from being prejudiced in the trial of their cases by anything which savours of a trial by newspapers instead of by the legal Tribunals of the country. Sadat Khaily vs State 15 DLR (SC) 81. Executive arm of the government will not be allowed to attack and deface the honour, dignity, majesty and independence of the judicial organ of the state, Abdul Karim Sarkar vs State 38 DLR (AD) 188. The confidence in Courts of justice which the public possess must in no way be tarnished, diminished or be wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The essence of contempt is in action or inaction amounting to an interference with or to obstruct due administration of justice, Moazzem Hossain vs State 35 DLR (AD) 290 In a contempt proceeding which is quasi-criminal in nature, the contemner is entitled to benefit of doubt and since the Court is both prosecutor and judge. rule as to proof of guilt of the contemner must be strictly observed. Moazzem Hossain vs State, 35 DLR (AD) 290. In considering whether the apology should be accepted or not, the following acts should be taken into consideration: r (i) As to whether the appellant appreciated that his act was within the mischief of contempt (ii) Whether he regretted it: (it) Whether his regret was sincere; (iv) Whether it was accompanied with expression of the resolution never to repeat again, and () Whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court. Abdul Karim Sarker vs State 38 DLR AD 188 A lawyer is expected at all times to maintain the dignity of the Court regardless of the shortcomings of the individual presiding over the Court, for it is not his personal dignity but the dignity of his office which has in the public interest to be respected. S. Gideon w State PLD 1963 (SC) 1. Where an Advocate stood up in Court and shouted "it is nonsense such words uttered by the Advocate were not only disrespectful but also insolent and amounted to a personal insult to the Court in its face. Therefore, they clearly constituted a contempt and unless uttered by an insane person can never be excused. G S Gideon vs State, PLD 1963 (SC) 1. Case-Law (Indian) It is necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression contempt of Court may seem to suggest, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. Advocate General State of Bihar vs Messrs Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, 1980 (3) SCC 311, 357 Judiciary is the bed-rock and hand-maiden of democracy. If people would lose faith in justice imparted by the highest Court of State the entire democratic set-up would crumble down. It is the duty of the press to uphold the dignity and majesty of the seat of justice and not to try to vilify and contaminate the imparting of justice by suggesting methods to the litigants which are based on dishonesty, unfairness and favouritism done by the judges, Mohammad Amin viN Om Prakash Bansal 1982 CHLI 322 335 (Raj) -If any party to the proceedings considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the law or its application, resort must be had to such review or appeals as the law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly administration and civil government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position as regards private parties, the duty to obey is all the more imperative in the case of Government authorities, otherwise there would be a conflict between one branch of the state polity, viz, the executive and another branch, the Judiciary. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. The proceedings for contempt of Court cannot be used as a lever to obtain a relief in accordance with the decree from the judgment-debtor These proceedings have to be resorted to uphold the dignity, of the Court. Prakash Chand vs SS Grewal 1975 Cr LJ 679, 684, 685 (P&H). -Apology if any, must be to the satisfaction of the Court, and must be made bonafide. An apology tendered must not convey the impression that when the contemner sees that the Court is going to hold him guilty, he then offers an apology. An apology to be accepted, must be offered right at the start of the proceedings. The apology must be one coming from a sincere heart and not as a matter of mere formality. 1975 CLJ 1766 1769 (MP) A serious note is to be taken of a disrespectful or disdainful attitude of a person bound by the decree or order with a view to uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the Courts of law and justice. The refusal or failure of the Government or its servants concerned to take any action to reinstate a decree holder, who has obtained a declaration in his favour to the effect that the order of his dismissal was void, illegal and of no effect and to giant him all the benefits and privileges of his service following from that declaration, will have to be judged in the light of the observations made above in order to find out whether the person complained against has committed an offence of contempt of Court or mot. Prakash Chand vs SS Grewal, 1975, CrLJ 679, 686 (P&H) In the matter of prohibitory order it is well-settled that it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted in order to justify committal for breach of such an order provided it is proved that the person complained against had notice of the order. Hoshiar Singh Gurbachan Singh. AIR 1968 (SC) 1348, 1986 CILJ 1514 It is well-settled that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and such an order can be ignored with impunity. The fundamental principle is, that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. Where the order of which contempt is alleged to have been committed was without jurisdiction, the contemners did not commit any contempt when they ignored the order, D. Viveranada Atmaram Chitale w Vidya Vardhini Sabha 1985. CHLJ 359, 366, 367 (Bombay) A contempt proceeding cannot be used by a party to enforce a disputed claim. The determining factor is not the harm done to the individual but the harm done to the future administration of justice. Ashish Kumar Ghosh vs Union of India 1985 Cru (Cal). 87. The apologies tendered on behalf of the respondent are of no avail as the same was done half-heartedly at the last moment, with the hope that the contemners be excused of any act of violation, if found guilty of the acts complained. Lakshmi Narayan Datta vs Mira Rani. 1984 CrLJ 1035. Once a case is decided, it is the bounden duty of the State and its subordinate to implement, with the utmost expedition, the said decision. In a Government which is ruled by law, there must be complete awareness to carry out faithfully and honestly the decisions rendered by Courts of law after effective adjudication. Then only will private individuals, organisations and institutions learn to respect the decisions of Courts. In the absence of such attitude on the part of all concerned, chaotic conditions might arise and the functions assigned to the Courts of law under the Constitution might be rendered a futile exercise. It requires to be emphasised, in this connection that mere preferment of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decision under appeal and that till an application for stay is moved and granted by the appellate Court or in the alternative, the Court which rendered the decision is moved and grants an interim stay of the decision pending the preferment of an appeal and grant of stay by the appellate Court, the decision continues to be operative. Indeed, non-compliance with the decision on the mere ground that an appeal is contemplated to be preferred or is actually preferred, and that, therefore, the matter is sub-judice. may amount to contempt of Court punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971. Baradakanta Mishra vs Bhimsen Dixit. AIR 1972 (SC) 2466. It is not sufficient in cases for the purpose of visiting a judicial officer with the penal consequences of proceedings in contempt simply because he committed an error of judgment or the order passed by him is in excess of authority vested in him. SS Roy vs State of Orissa, AIR (SC) 190. Administrative Tribunal Act Section 2 (aa) -Whether writ petition is maintainable filed by an employee of the Anti-Corruption Commission who challenge his compulsory retirement in writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division by passing the Administrative Tribunals. The Appellate Division observed that provisions of the section 2 (aa) of the Administrative Tribunals Act that it shall be applicable for all the persons in the service of the Republic. The Act shall also be applicable to the employees of statutory bodies only when it is included in the Schedule to the Act. On careful scrutiny of the Schedule to the Act, it transpires that Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the Act was not applicable to the writ petitioner. Since, the Act was/is not applicable to the writ petitioner and he had no other equally efficacious remedy available in any other forum, provided by any law, the High Court Division rightly found the writ petition to be maintainable. In such view of the matter, the appeal fails. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Md. Humaiyun Kabir and others (Civil) 17 ALR (AD) 100- 103 Sections 2(aa) and 4 Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act– Provisions of the Act that it shall be applicable for all the persons in the service of the Republic. The Act shall also be applicable to the employees of statutory bodies only when it is included in the Schedule to the Act. On careful scrutiny of the Schedule to the Act, it transpires that Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the Act was not applicable to the writ petitioner. Since, the Act was/is not applicable to the writ petitioner and he had no other equally efficacious remedy available in any other forum, provided by any law, the High Court Division rightly found the writ petition to be maintainable. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. …Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Humaiyun Kabir(Md), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 109] Section 2, clause (b ) The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111 Sections 2 and 4 The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 911 . Sections 2(aa) and 4 The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. Sections 2(aa) and 4 Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act– Provisions of the Act that it shall be applicable for all the persons in the service of the Republic. The Act shall also be applicable to the employees of statutory bodies only when it is included in the Schedule to the Act. On careful scrutiny of the Schedule to the Act, it transpires that Anti-Corruption Commission is not included in it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the Act was not applicable to the writ petitioner. Since, the Act was/is not applicable to the writ petitioner and he had no other equally efficacious remedy available in any other forum, provided by any law, the High Court Division rightly found the writ petition to be maintainable. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. …Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Humaiyun Kabir(Md), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 109] Section 2, clause (b ) The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111 Sections 2 and 4 The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 911 . Sections 2(aa) and 4 The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. Section 2, clause (b)- The decision of the Appellate Tribunal like that of the Tribunal is immune from any review under Article 102 because Article 117 also applies to the Appellate Tribunal. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Sections 2 and 4-The Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Mozibul Huq va Chairman, Ist Labour Court and others 55 DLR (AD) 91 Sections 2(aa) and 4-The transferability or non-transferability of the appellant's service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981. The Administrative Tribunal has the full power to give complete relief to an applicant including drawing up of contempt proceeding against an employer refusing to comply with its order. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. Sections 3 and 5-There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Afujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111 Sections 3 and 5 There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Sections 3 and 5 There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Section 4 The Writ petition is not maintainable– The Grameen Bank being in the list of enterprises contained in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, matters relating to service of the employees of the Grameen Bank would have to be referred to the Administrative Tribunal. As such any petition under the writ jurisdiction relating to service matters of the Grameen Bank is not maintainable. Challenging the vires of the regulations was merely a ploy to bring the matter within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. As it happens, the writ petitioners challenged the regulation Nos. 13.1 and 13.5 in Chapter-Three of the regulations which are not applicable to their cases. We are of the view that the challenge to the vires of regulations 13.1 and 13.5 of the Bidhimala was totally misconceived and that the Grameen Bank being an enterprise listed within the schedule of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, the writ petitions were not maintainable. …Birendra Nath Ojha =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 358] Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981) Section 4(2)- There was no judicial or departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement; even no proceedings either judicial or department had been initiated against him within a year of his retirement. The action taken by the authority stopping the pay of the pension to the petitioner has no legal basis. Md Sanaullah, (Retired) vs Bangladesh (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 89 Section 4(2) Under the second proviso to section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, after the expiry of two months from the date of the filing of the departmental appeal it was deemed to have been disallowed, and the limitation period started to run from that date, from which date the A.T. petition had to be filed within six months. By reading section 4 of the Act, the Appellate Division is left with no doubt that the interpretation of that section as provided by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was unimpeachable. It thus follows that the Administrative Tribunal fell in error in assuming jurisdiction in the matter. From that point of view, as the Appellate Tribunal rightly found the Tribunal's decision was ultimately correct, as the position would have been the same if it refused to admit jurisdiction. The Appellate Division finds no merit in the leave petition which is accordingly dismissed. Md. Aminur Rahman -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others (Civil), 22 ALR (AD) 192 Section 4 The appellants could not controvert the claim of the respondent, the Administrative Tribunal on proper appreciation of the facts arrived at cor- rect findings in this regard.......(17) Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Arifuddin (Obaidul Hassana J) (Civil) 20 ADC 285 আপিলকারীরা প্রতিপক্ষের দাবি খণ্ডন করতে পারেনি, প্রশাসনিক ট্রাইব্যুনাল যথাযথভাবে ঘটনা বিবেচনা করে এ বিষয়ে সঠিক সিদ্ধান্তে উপনীত হয়েছে.......(১৭) বাংলাদেশ সরকার বনাম মোঃ আরিফউদ্দিন (ওবায়দুল হাসান জ) (দেওয়ানী) ২০ এডিসি ২৮৫ Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981: No punishment was awarded against the petitioner pursuant to any departmental proceeding. And, by no means, the audit objection raised by the Audit and Accounts Officer of the Railpath Audit Adhidaptor, can be treated as punishment. More so, as per the own statement of the petitioner. his application for settling the audit objection remained undisposed till the filing of the application before the Tribunal (Para-12, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah). Elahi Box Sardar (Md) Vs. Government of Bangladesh & others: 67 DLR(AD)127 Section 4- If they fail to get proper redress from the appellants, the writ-petitioner will be at liberty to go to the administrative tribunal, which can decide any question relating to the terms and conditions of the service including the question of malafide in preparation of the gradation list. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Arun Chandra Banik (Civil) 71 DLR (AD) 1 Section 4-The Grameen Bank being in the list of enterprises contained in the schedule to the Act, matters relating to service of the employees of the Grameen Bank would have to be referred to the Tribunal. Any petition under the writ juris- diction relating to service matters of the Grameen Bank is not maintainable. Challenging the vires of the regulations was merely a ploy to bring the matter within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. Birendra Nath Ojha vs Government of Bangla- desh (Civil) 71 DLR (AD) 381 Sections 4, 6 and 6A of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980: Unless the allegations brought against the respondent are inquired into, it is difficult to believe that the allegations brought against him out of a conspiracy at the instance of a vested quarter. Therefore, the censure made by the appellant against the respondent cannot be said to be legal. (Para-11, Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain). Ref: 1964 AC 40.. Compulsory Retirement from service: Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Establishment, Dhaka Vs. SM Raiz Uddin Ahmed: 68 DLR(AD)154 A departmental proceeding was started for allegation of misconduct against the respondent, a police officer and ultimately by an order dated 10.05.2001 he was compulsorily retired from service. It appears that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was passed without supplying a copy of the enquiry report. As such, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, declaring the order of compulsory retirement as illegal while as upheld by the Appellate Division. (Para-2 & 5, Mr. Justice A.B.M. Khairul Haque). Defects in the departmental inquiry and proceedings: Government of Bangladesh & others Vs. Md. Alauddin: 7 ADC 641 In the instant case we find that the allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature. He is alleged to have been part of a group of 3 Constables who were involved in hijacking and extortion.. It is our view that such a serious allegation regarding a member of the disciplined force, who was entrusted with protection of the public and who allegedly himself became the perpetrator against the public, cannot be set at naught for technical defects in the departmental inquiry and proceedings. (Para-8, Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali). Ref: 51 DLR(AD)145: Bangladesh & another Vs. Md. Bazlur Rashid: 6 XP(AD)109 Defence Plea: admitted the guilt Section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980: When the accused admitted his guilt and took the plea that he committed the offence under the order of his superior. Such a defence is not permissible in law. (Para-7, Mr. Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman): Md. Mominul Islam Vs. The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh: 15 MLR(AD)474 Gratuitous relief: Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981: The Tribunal cannot grant gratuitous relief and if such a relief is granted the same should be construed as relief granted in excess of jurisdiction. The Act has not provided for any such authority to the Tribunal to give such a relief as has been given to the authority in the present case. (Para-12, Hon'ble Chief Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury). Ref: 45 DLR(AD)106: Government of Bangladesh & others Vs. Md. Anwarul Islam: 62 DLR(AD)273-14 MLR(AD)283 Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980: The Administrative Tribunal is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 to hear and determine applications made by any person in the service of Republic or statutory public authority as specified in the schedule in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or in respect of any action taken in relation to him in the service. (Para-11, Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha): Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Food & others Vs. A.B.M. Siddique Mia: 15 MLR(AD)460 Section 4- Section 4 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso. It is true that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that should be taken in the Court of first instance, but there may be cases in which no fact need be gone into and if it is found from the facts stated by the petitioner that a case is filed beyond the period of limitation, particularly in a case under the special statute like the instant one, then there is no any legal bar to raise the point of limitation even at the appellate stage. The Appellate Division in a number of cases earlier decided that it is the 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso, i.e. two months plus six months which shall govern the period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal and a case filed before the Administrative Tribunal after the expiry of the said period (two months + six months) shall be barred by limitation. The Appellate Division does not see any reason to review the said decision of the Appellate Division. Therefore, the Appellate Division finds nothing wrong with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the case filed before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation. Mr. Sirajul Haque also tried to argue another point that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The opposite parties (before the Ad- ministrative Tribunal) did not raise any objection before the Administrative Tribunal about the limitation in filing the case before it, therefore, at the appellate stage, they were not entitled to take the said point. It is true that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that should be taken in the Court of first instance, but there may be cases in which no fact need be gone into and if it is found from the facts stated by the petitioner that a case is filed beyond the period of limitation, particularly in a case under the special statute like the instant one, then The Appellate Division does not find any legal bar to raise the point of limitation even at the appellate stage. When admittedly the case in hand was filed before the Administrative Tribunal long after the period of six months after the expiry of the period of two months from the date of filing the departmental appeal as provided in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, the opposite parties appellant could very much raise the point of limitation in the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal rightly entertained the same and decided the point against the petitioner. In view of the above, the Appellate Division finds no merit in the leave petitions and accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. A.K.M. Jalaluddin Ahmed -Vs- Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others (Civil) 18 ALR (AD) 86-86 Section 4 read with Limitation Act [IX of 1908] Sections 14 and 29 (2) -While computing the period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal a person can not have the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Division held that the limitation in regard to cases under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 has to be calculated applying the procedures described in the Act itself and there is very little scope, if not no scope, to deviate from the strict rule of limitation embodied in the Act while dealing with Administrative Tribunals cases. Md. Sirajul Islam Khan. Vs.- Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka and others (Civil) 17 ALR (AD) 65-68 Section 4 (2) - The case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal. The Appellate Division observed that in the facts of the instant case, it appears that the appellant filed his appeal before the appellate authority therefore, on 13.12.1998 his appeal would be deemed to have been disallowed and the appellant was required by law to file his case before the Administrative Tribunal by 12.06.1999. The records show that the appellant filed the case before the Administrative Tribunal on 08.02.2000 which is beyond the period of limitation provided by the Act, 1980. Anwar Hossain Biswas -Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 16 ALR (AD) 121-125 Section 4(2) - Under the second proviso section to 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, after the expiry of two months from the date of the filing of the departmental appeal it was deemed to have been disallowed, and the limitation period started to run from that date, from which date the A.T. petition had to be filed within six months. By reading section 4 of the Act, the Appellate Division is left with no doubt that the interpretation of that section as provided by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was unimpeachable. It thus follows that the Administrative Tribunal fell in error in assuming jurisdiction in the matter. From that point of view, as the Appellate Tribunal rightly found the Tribunal's decision was ultimately correct, as the position would have been the same if it refused to admit jurisdiction. The Appellate Division finds no merit in the leave petition which is accordingly dismissed. Md. Aminur Rahman -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 22 ALR (AD) 192 Section 4(2) -The Appellate Division held that the contents in the body of the absorption letter clearly show that the Chief Inspector (current charge) of Factories and Establishment issued the letter of absorption to the appellant pursuant to the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Establishment and the Ministry of Labour and Employment and surely there was no such condition in the Memorandum issued by the Ministries and had there been any such thing in the Memorandum that would have been mentioned or reflected in the body of the absorption letter. The condition that the seniority of the petitioner would be counted from the date of joining the absorbed post of Labour Inspector (General) was mentioned at serial No. 10 under the head "অনুলিপি অবগতি ও প্রয়োজনীয় ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণের জন্য প্রেরণ করা হইল:-" and that condition reads as follows. ১.--- ২.----- ৩.---- 8.----- ৫.---- ৬—-- ৭.----- ৮-৯.----- ১০। জনাব মোঃ মাহমুদুল হক, ৫৮/এ, আজিমপুর সরকারী আবাসন, ঢাকা-১২০৫। জনশক্তি পরিকল্পনা কেন্দ্রে তাহার চাকুরী নন গেজেটেড পদে ছিল বিধায় শ্রম পরিদর্শক (সাধারণ গেজেটেড) পদে যে দিন, তারিখ হইতে তাহার বর্তমান পদে জ্যেষ্ঠতা গন্য করা হইবে। তাহার পূর্বগণের চাকুরীর নথি, জীবন ইত্যাদি সত্ত্বর এই দপ্তরে দাখিল করার জন্য নির্দেশ দেওয়া হইল।" So, the condition that the seniority of the appellant would be counted from the date of his joining the absorbed post could in no way be accepted or read as a term of the absorption. Reading the absorption letter as a whole, it prima-facie appears to the Appellate Division that the condition as mentioned at serial No. 10 quoted above was nothing but the fanciful desire of the Inspector of Factories and Establishment having no backing of law. The Appellate Division has looked into the provisions of the Ordinance, 1985, but the Appellate Division could not find anything there to put a condition in the absorption letter as quoted hereinbefore. The learned Deputy Attorney General also failed to locate any provision of law which authorized the Chief Inspector (current charge), Factories and Establishment to incorporate or add such a condition in the absorption letter. The Appellate Division is further obliged to state that the condition that the seniority of the appellant would be counted from the date of his joining the absorbed post was totally against the provision of the Ordinance, 1985 and the Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat and the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Establishment dated 20.03.1979 and 16.06.1996 respectively. Md. Mahmudul Haque -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 20 ALR (AD) 109-118 Section 4 We note that the Appellate Tribunal found that there was no dispute that the petitioner (respondent herein) cross-examined some other P.Ws. We also note from the papers that the respondent was given personal hearing as requested by him and he was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal shifted the burden on to the appellant to prove that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses whose evidence led to his finding of guilt. When the delinquent employee alleges any defect in the proceeding then it is his burden to prove such allegation. In the face of admission that some of the P.Ws were cross-examined, we cannot accept that the respondent did not get the opportunity to cross-examine the other P.Ws. The respondent was compulsorily retired, which means that he will get all his employment benefits up to the date of the order of his retirement. We find that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. The impugned order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The order of the Administrative Tribunal is restored. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Isa Md. Nizamul Islam, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 70] Section 4(2), 13 Prayed for a declaration that the orders dated 16-2-79 and 21-12-81. are void, illegal, without jurisdiction, mala fide, inoperative and without lawful authority and that the plaintiff (appellant) is still in service in the eye of law. It is obvious that section 13 of Act No. VII of 1981 has no manner of application of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The decree of the Civil Court having already been executed after the appellant was re-instated in his service, his subsequent prayer for promotion, status, scale of pay, arrear pay and other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal pending immediately before the commencement of Act No. VII of 1981. There are new causes of action and the appellant has correctly invoked the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal for obtaining relief in the matters prayed for. The two Tribunals apparently took a wrong view that these reliefs are anciliary and consequential reliefs emanting from the decree of the Civil Court and have wrongly refrained from exercising their jurisdiction in the matter. The Administrative Tribunal will now hear the appellant's petition on merit. Khandaker Golam Najib vs. Chairman, Board of Directors, Agrani Bank, Head Office, Dhaka and others (Mustafa Kamal J) (Civil) 4 ADC 317 Section 4(2), (92) Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act says that a persons may make an application to the Tribunal if he is aggrieved by any order, decision or action of the authority, and the second proviso thereto prescribes a period of 6 months from the date of such order decision for action to file such an application. Md. Badsha Miah vs Sonali Bank (Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain CJ)(Civil) 2 ADC 41 Section 4(2) Whereas the case filed by the respondent before the Administrative Tribunal on 28.9.1997. So, the question that the case was barred because the respondent did not file any review before the President in respect of the order of his dismissal from service does not arise. Banlgadesh vs Dr. Md. Tofajjel Hossain (Md. Hamidul Haque J)(Civil) 2ADC 215 Section 4(2), 13 The decree of the civil court having already been executed after the appellant was re-instated in his service, his subsequent prayer for promotion, status, scale of pay, arrear pay and other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal pending immediately before the commencement of the said Act. Khandaker Golam Najib vs Chairman, Agrani Bank (Mustafa Kamal J)(Civil) 2 ADC 323 AAT was in Serious error in modifying the order of dismissal in the manner as stated hereinbefore upon importing the concept of proportionality which has no application in the instant case Agrani Bank represented by the Chairman. Board of Director Agrani Bank vs Khandaker Badurdduza (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) IADC 81 Administrative Tribunal Additional charge in a departmental proceeding 14 MLR(AD)298-20 BLT(AD)68: Bangladesh Krishi Bank & others Vs. Md. Saidul Haque: Regulation 47 of the Bangladesh Krishi Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1988: In'a departmental proceeding when additional charge are brought, the accused must be given opportunity to show cause against those charge. Otherwise the enquiry proceedings shall be vitiated (দূষিত) and the penalty imposed therein shall be illegal. When criminal case and departmental proceedings are started on the selfsame matter, the imposition of penalty in the departmental proceedings shall be held up till disposal of the criminal case. In the instant case there had been gross violation of the mandatory requirement of law which rendered the penalty of dismissal from service not sustainable in the eye of law. (Para-7, Mr. Justice Md. Tafazzul Islam). Ref: 27 DLR 428. Appointment of Inquiry Officer 6 ADC 541: Sonali Bank Limited & another Vs. Md. Abdul Aziz & another: Section 4(2) & 6(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 read with Regulations 11 & 13 of the Sonali Bank (Employees) Service Regulations, 1981: The departmental proceeding of the Bank being held in violation of the provision of the Service Regulations of the Sonali Bank cannot be treated as legal or valid, inasmuch as (যেহেতু) the respondent employee in the instant case has been denied his right to raise any objection against the appointment of the inquiry officer, and that the show cause notice as framed and issued and the appointment of inquiry officer as made, were not in accordance with the provisions of Regulation Nos. 11 and 13 of the Service Regulations of the Bank and that the Bank could not place any material, either before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to show that the appointment of the inquiry officer was made following the provision of Regulation 13 of the Service Regulations, 1981. (Para-5, Mr. Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman). Section 4(2), The appellant's submission that the plea of defect of party was taken after 6 years at the appellate stage does not hold good. The respondents took this objection at the first available opportunity. It is therefore difficult to say that the conduct of the respondents was such that the appellant deserves a differential treatment. On going through the said Concise Statement, on the other hand, our view is otherwise. The conduct of the appellant himself appears to depressing. He paid no heed on the respondents' written Mohammed Abdul Naim Chairman, Sonali statement, vs The Bank, Dhaka (Mustafa Kamal J) (Civil) 2 ADC 369 Section 4(2) Promotion– The Tribunal also declared that the appellant was entitled to his seniority on the basis of his past service with all “attendant benefits towards promotion from the date of which his juniors” were promoted along with increments, time scale, fixation of pay etc with arrears. Against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. We are constrained to hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the appeal, setting aside those of the Administrative Tribunal and we find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is allowed. The decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside and those of the Administrative Tribunal are restored. .....Md. Mahmudul Haque =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 123] Section 4(2) The Administrative Appellate Tribunal came into a finding that while passing the impugned decision the Administrative Tribunal failed to consider that the departmental proceeding against respondent No.1 was not initiated and disposed of legally and that the Administrative Tribunal arrived at a wrong finding in disallowing the case causing serious miscarriage of justice. The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. .....Janata Bank & another =VS= Md. Minhaj Uddin Ahmed & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 178] Section 4(2) The termination of the appellant was a “termination simpliciter” without attaching any stigma and that in fact no departmental proceedings were brought against the appellant in spite of serious allegations against him. In such a situation it would be illogical to sustain the order of the Administrative Tribunal thereby reinstating the appellant in service on an unwilling employer. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to get 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal in part setting aside the judgement of the Administrative Tribunal. The respondent Grameen Bank is hereby directed to pay the appellant Md. Azizul Haque salary for two years at the rate which was paid to him as on the date of his termination of service. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs. .....Azizul Haque(Md.) =VS= Grameen Bank, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 51] Administrative Appellate Tribunal relied on a document which had no evidentiary value in the eye of law Secretary, Ministry of Defence & ors. vs Abdul Mannan Lasker (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) I ADC 555 Section 4(2) Inspite of some amount of dubiousness on the part of the Government as regards the absorption of the respondent we have thought it just and proper to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent, for otherwise it will amount to endorsing a double standard on the part of executive Government giving a benefit to a particular person and denying the same to another although they are otherwise equal. The Director General, NSI vs Sultan Ahmed (A.T.M. Afzal CJ) 1 ADC 596 Section 4(1) Thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunal did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the instant case. Govt. BSMD Ganabhaban Comples, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka Md. Afzal Hossain Ansari (Md Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 1 ADC 492 Section 4(2), 6 Limitation– The finding of the Administrative Tribunal in respect of limitation in filing the cases is wrong and contrary to the provision of the 2nd proviso to section 4(2) of the Act. The respondents were dismissed from service following the procedures as contained in Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and as such the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeals, which, however, did not consider the question of limitation at all. We find substance in all the appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal affirming the decision of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. .....Ministry of Finance =VS= Md. Mominur Rahman, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 335] Section 4 Considering the legal position the Administrative:Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General/ Secretary, Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94. Section 4 Transfer of a trade union leader—Plea of, protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority—Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C.—The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal which has the full power to give complete relief to applicant. The right of a trade union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIIII of 1969) S. 47B Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2). Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another; 10 BLD (AD) 71. Section 4(1) Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 Government vs. Md Masud Miah 10 ADC 60 Section 4(1) Mr. Mahbubcy Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 Section 4(2) The Code of Civil Procedure Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 r/w Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 4(2) Compulsory retirement with giving all the due service benefits–– Since the Agrani Bank was not complying with the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the respondent filed Miscellaneous A.T. Case No. 8 of 2008 (Execution) under order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon hearing the parties the application was allowed by order dated 17.01.2012 directing the [07]concerned authorities to pay all the dues to the respondent up to 26.10.2008, the date on which he was reinstated. This order was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgement dated 12.02.2013. ––It is patently clear that Agrani Bank Limited has not complied with the earlier order passed by the Administrative Tribunal which was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. That order, having not been challenged, is binding upon the Agrani Bank Limited. .....Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Md. Salek Uddin, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 179] Section 4 Petitioners have not been given· any right· under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hajizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147. Section 4 In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65. Section 4(2) Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 117(1), 117(2) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 4(2) The Administrative Tribunal cannot direct the Government to amend the law as well as it cannot direct the Government to give promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub- Assistant Settlement Officer because the promotion is not a right–– It appears from words used in the order of the High Court Division that the Administrative Tribunal by its decision directed the concerned authority to take steps by amending respective “Bidhimala” for giving promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub-Assistant Settlement Officer. In fact, by the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal directed to amend the law in giving positive relief of the writ petitioners which can not be allowed. The Administrative Tribunal cannot direct the Government to amend the law as well as it cannot direct the Government to give promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub- Assistant Settlement Officer because the promotion is not a right.–– The writ respondents may consider the case of writ petitioners following the provisions of law, if they are at all entitled. .....Rabiul Karim(Md.) =VS= Golam Morshed Khan, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 272] Section 4 Period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal– This Court in a number of cases earlier decided that it is the 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso, i.e. two months plus six months which shall govern the period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal and a case filed before the Administrative Tribunal after the expiry of the said period (two months + six months) shall be barred by limitation. We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the case filed before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation. When admittedly, the case in hand was filed before the Administrative Tribunal long after the period of six months after the expiry of the period of two months from the date of filing the departmental appeal as provided in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, the opposite parties appellant could very much raise the point of limitation in the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal rightly entertained the same, and decided the point against the petitioner. We find no merit in the leave petitions and accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. …AKM Jalaluddin Ahmed =VS= Ministry of Education, BD, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 335] Section 4(1) and 4(2) The Administrative Tribunal is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction under section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 to hear and determine applications made by any person in the service of Republic or statutory public authority as specified in the schedule in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or in respect of any action taken in relation to him in the service as aforesaid. The proviso to sub section (2) of section 4 provides that "no application in respect of an order, decision or action which can be set aside, varied or modified by a higher administrative authority under any law for the time being inforce relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority or the discipline of that service could be made to the Administrative Tribunal until such higher authority has taken a decision on the matter". The applicant must be an aggrieved person by any order or decision or action taken by the authority which confers the powers and jurisdiction of the higher Administrative Tribunal subject to fulfilment of two conditions as provided in the proviso. The Administrative Tribunal has no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within 6(six) months of making a decision by the higher Administrative authority. Since no decision was given by the higher authority the application under section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act was not maintainable. …Ministry of Food, Bangladesh =VS= A.B.M. Siddique Mia, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 240] Sections 4(2), 6(2A) The case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal– By the order of the authority dated 06.10.1998 the appellant was demoted to his lower rank for a period of two years, against which he filed appeal before the authority, namely the Government, on 13.10.1998. The appellate authority by order dated 12.08.1999 demoted the appellant to his lower rank for ever.. The appellant then filed a case before the Administrative Tribunal on 08.02.2000 challenging both the orders dated 06.10.1998 and 12.08.1999. However, the requirement of the law as enunciated in the second proviso to section 4(2)of the Act, 1980 is that the case before Administrative Tribunal must be presented within six months of the decision of the appellate authority, and if the authority does not make a decision on the employee's appeal within two months of the appeal being filed, it will be deemed to have been disallowed and the case before the Administrative Tribunal must be filed within a period of six months therefrom, i.e. within eight months from the date of filing the appeal. The point of limitation was elaborately discussed in the case of Md. Nazimuddin vs Government of Bangladesh and ors reported in 17 BLC (AD)10. The decision of the Administrative Tribunal was dated 12.10.2002 and the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was filed on 23.4.2003 which is beyond the period of six months stipulated in section 6(2A) of the Act, 1980. Section 4(3) Administrative tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters when a person in the service of the Republic is aggrieved by any order or decision in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or by any action taken in relation to him as a person in the service of the Republic. In the present case, the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 is a person in the service of the Republic as per the provision of section 4(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 and as such the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter regarding the terms and conditions of the service of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1. ...Secretary, Posts & Telecom Div. & anr Vs. Shudangshu Shekhar & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 11 Sections 4, 6(2) The case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case– The Appellate Tribunal observed that from the amended prayers it appeared that cause of action for filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal arose on 13.08.2003 whereas the petition was filed on 15.07.2002. So the case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case. It further appears that while the case was filed the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was pending, therefore, he had no cause of action to file the case. But the Tribunal failed to consider this factual aspect of the case, when it was not proper for the Tribunal to pass any order directing reinstatement of the petitioner. In view of the above Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the impugned decision which was done legally. This civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. ...Jalal(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 86] Paragraph 24 of 71 DLR (AD) 319 is a per incuriam decision: We are of the view that the part of the judgment reported in 71 DLR (AD) 319 particularly in paragraph 24 regarding maintainability of the writ petition was passed without considering the latest provision of law and, as such, the part of the said judgment regarding maintainability of the writ petition filed by a retired public servant is a per incuriam decision. (Para 12) Any Court equivalent to the Court which pronounced the judgment per incuriam is free to depart from a decision of that Court where that earlier judgment was decided per incuriam: Per incuriam, literally translated as “through lack of care” is a device within the common law system of judicial precedent. A finding of per incuriam means that a previous Court judgment has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents. The significance of a judgment having been decided per incuriam is that it need not be followed by any equivalent Court. Ordinarily, the rationes of a judgment is binding upon all sub-ordinate Courts in similar cases. However, any Court equivalent to the Court which pronounced the judgment per incuriam is free to depart from a decision of that Court where that earlier judgment was decided per incuriam. (Para 13) Article 111 of the Constitution: If any judgment pronounced by the Appellate Division, as per provision of Article 111 of the Constitution the High Court Division is not competent to say the judgment is per incuriam. Primarily the High Court Division must follow the judgment in toto, however, in such a situation the High Court Division may draw attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice regarding the matter. On the other hand even if any judgment is pronounced by the High Court Division, the subordinate Courts have no jurisdiction to raise any question regarding the legality of the judgment on the point of per imcuriam. Parties may get remedy on preferring appeal. (Para 24) 18 SCOB (2023) AD 11 Section 4 The Writ petition is not maintainable– The Grameen Bank being in the list of enterprises contained in the schedule to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, matters relating to service of the employees of the Grameen Bank would have to be referred to the Administrative Tribunal. As such any petition under the writ jurisdiction relating to service matters of the Grameen Bank is not maintainable. Challenging the vires of the regulations was merely a ploy to bring the matter within the scope of the writ jurisdiction. As it happens, the writ petitioners challenged the regulation Nos. 13.1 and 13.5 in Chapter-Three of the regulations which are not applicable to their cases. We are of the view that the challenge to the vires of regulations 13.1 and 13.5 of the Bidhimala was totally misconceived and that the Grameen Bank being an enterprise listed within the schedule of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, the writ petitions were not maintainable. …Birendra Nath Ojha =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 358] Serious scandal of corruption in connection with judicial functions 6 ADC 828: Md. Jahangir Kabir Vs. Bangladesh & others: Article 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980: It is provided that where an appeal has been preferred, if not responded within 2(two) months, then the administrative Tribunal may made within 6(six) months from the said date, accordingly the case has been filed in time. (Para-3, Mr. Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman). Misconduct and Courruption 6 ALR(AD)(2)31-67 DLR(AD)381: Md. Aynul Haque being dead his heirs Begum Mahmuda Haq & others Vs. Government of Bangladesh: Rule 3(b) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985: The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and unshakeable clouds around the conduct of an officer and gain notoriety (কুখ্যাতি) must faster than the smoke. Sometimes there may not be concrete or material evidence to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. Judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions. Members of the judicial service, exercising judicial functions, are distinct from the members of other services. Therein honesty and integrity is their judicial junctions (সংযোগ) and their overall reputations. There is no manner of doubt that nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity (সাধুতা), Dishonesty is the stark (সম্পূর্ণ) antitheses (বিপরীত বস্তু) of judicial polity (প্রক্রিয়া), (Para-6, Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique). Natural Justice 68 DLR(AD)154: Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Establishment, Dhaka Vs. SM Raiz Uddin Ahmed: Sections 4, 6 and 6A of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980: It is not permissible to take disciplinary action against a person solely on the basis of adverse remarks made by a Tribunal in a criminal case unless the allegations imputed in the adverse remarks are proved in disciplinary proceeding. (Para-14, Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain). Ref: 1964 AC 40. Section 4 Jurisdiction to file AT case– The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 along with the schedule annexed thereto it appears that the Anti-Corruption Commission has not been included therein and, as such, the decision referred to above squarely applies in this case. Again the Anti-Corruption Commission being creature of statute and unless that statutory body is included in the schedule to the Act, 1980, there arises no question of availability of the jurisdiction before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 is applicable to all persons in the service of the Republic as well as to the employees of statutory bodies which have been included in the schedule to the said Act, 1980. Since the Act is not applicable in the case of the writ petitioner and since he had no other equally efficacious alternative remedy available in any other forum provide by any law, the writ petition is maintainable. Civil appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ...Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Ahsan Ali(Md), (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 113] Section 4 We note that the Appellate Tribunal found that there was no dispute that the petitioner (respondent herein) cross-examined some other P.Ws. We also note from the papers that the respondent was given personal hearing as requested by him and he was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal shifted the burden on to the appellant to prove that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses whose evidence led to his finding of guilt. When the delinquent employee alleges any defect in the proceeding then it is his burden to prove such allegation. In the face of admission that some of the P.Ws were cross-examined, we cannot accept that the respondent did not get the opportunity to cross-examine the other P.Ws. The respondent was compulsorily retired, which means that he will get all his employment benefits up to the date of the order of his retirement. We find that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, without, however, any order as to costs. The impugned order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The order of the Administrative Tribunal is restored. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Isa Md. Nizamul Islam, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 70] Negligence of duty: Major punishment should not be imposed 4 CLR(AD)67: Janata Bank Ltd. & another Vs. Syed Md. Abu Taher & another: Regulation 38 of the Janata Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1995: It appears from the judgment and order that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal has scrutinized the enquiry report and the evidence of the witnesses and observed that respondent No.1 was a simple and honest man and any act of misappropriation of bank money was not expected of him. It was further observed that respondent No.1 signed the disputed voucher in good faith at the dictation and instruction of the Chief Cashier and that although this was a dangerous precedent it was almost common practice in the bank. Lastly, it was observed that the charge framed against the petitioner did not indict him directly of misappropriation but held him responsible for abetment of the offence committed by the Chief Cashier. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal concluded that the case against respondent No.1 was not a case of misappropriation of bank money by him, but at best it was a case of negligence of duty. (Para-16, Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali). Ref: 14 BLD(AD)171. Power of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to modify the penalty 15 MLR(AD)494: Managing Director, Bangladesh Krishi Bank & another Vs. Gopal Chandra Nath & others: Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980: It appears that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal took a lenient (উদার) view and modified the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement of the respondent and allowed him to get the arrear benefits. (Para-7, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Matin). Procedural defect in the proceedings 14 MLR(AD)217: Janata Bank & another Vs. Mr. Fazlul Hoq & another: Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 read with Regulation 38 of the Janata Bank Employees Service Regulation, 1995: The Administrative Appellate Tribunal found procedural defect in not following the provision of Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules during the enquiry proceedings and held that the accused-respondent cannot be deprived of the benefit of the procedural defect and as such directed his reinstatement although the charges are found true. The apex Court concurred with the findings of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. (Para-5, Hon'ble Chief Justice MM Ruhul Amin). Promotion of juniors before senior 17 BLT(AD)211: Md. Nurul Hoque Miah Vs. Government of Bangladesh & others: Article 29, 135(2) & 140(2) (c) of the Constitution of Bangladesh: Though the promotion could not be claimed as of right but the case of the appellant was to considered when his juniors were awarded promotion, more so, when the appellant was not found to be unfit for promotion. This the authority had acted illegally and without lawful authority in not considering the appellant's case of promotion though he was not found to be unfit for the purpose. We direct to treat him promoted as the Commissioner of Taxes with effect from 07.09.1995 but will not be entitled to any financial benefit for the said period until going on LPR as a Commissioner of Taxes and consequent retirement with effect from 30.123.1997 but would get his pension calculated at the rate of basic pay for the scale at Tk. 7800-200 X 6-9000/- as amended by new scale 11,700-3 X 6-13500/- w.e.f. 1.7.1997 per month treating the appellant deemed to have been promoted to the said post of Commissioner of Taxes. (Para-17 & 19, Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim). Ref: 1982 BLD 144. Promotion/Demotion 19 MLR(AD)215: Government of Bangladesh & others Vs. Md. Abul Kashem: Rule 64 of the Police Training College Manual Part- III(A): Once promotion is given and there cannot be any demotion without given a second chance or given any notice of his impending (আসন্ন) demotion or any starting departmental proceeding leading to a punishment, or any lac of available post. (Para-7, Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali). Show cause notice is a must before dismissal from service 3 CLR(AD)185: The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Halim: Rule 11(3) of the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985: The order of punishment cannot be said to be legal as, admittedly, no second show cause notice as per requirement of law was served upon the delinquent employee-respondent before imposition of this punishment. (Para-6, Ms. Justice Nazmun Ara Sulana). Stay the departmental proceeding 66 DLR(AD)251: Government of Bangladesh & others Vs. Md. Abdul Karim: Rule 25(1) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985: Imposition of punishment in the departmental proceeding will remain stayed only until disposal of the criminal case. After disposal of the criminal case the authority will have no bar in imposing any punishment on the delinquent employee in the departmental proceeding. (Para-6, Ms. Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana). Substitution Heirs of the deceased-employee can be substituted in the pending proceeding. 21 BLC 511: Shirin Akhter Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Education & others: Article 102(2) of the Constitution of Bangladesh read with Section 7A of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981: It has been provided in Section 7A that when an application against any order, decision, dismissal or removal from service is pending before the Administrative Tribunal, if the employee or servant of the Republic dies, than his/her heirs can be substituted in the pending proceeding as heirs of the deceased and right to so survive. (Para-7, Mr. Justice Jahangir Hossain). Ref: 2 BLC 569. Without passing the decision by the higher authority petition not maintainable 63. 63 DLR(AD)15: Bangladesh & others Vs. ABM Siddique Mia: Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981: Admittedly the higher authority in the department did not give any decision in respect of the terms and conditions of the respondent's service. The Administrative Tribunal has no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within 6(six) months of making a decision by the higher Administrative authority, Since no decision was given by the higher authority the application under Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act was not maintainable, and both the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal overlooking this provision given the respondent gratuitous relief in excess of its jurisdiction. More so, the respondent though sought for a declaration of the memo dated 31" December, 1996 as had been passed or made without lawful authority, the Administrative Tribunal directed the appellants to give the respondent the attendant service benefit which was beyond the relief claimed in the petition, and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without application of its judicial mind maintained the said direction. Therefore, we find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not interfering with the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal. There is, therefore, merit in this appeal. (Para-11, Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha). Section 4(2) Promotion– The Tribunal also declared that the appellant was entitled to his seniority on the basis of his past service with all “attendant benefits towards promotion from the date of which his juniors” were promoted along with increments, time scale, fixation of pay etc with arrears. Against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. We are constrained to hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the appeal, setting aside those of the Administrative Tribunal and we find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is allowed. The decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside and those of the Administrative Tribunal are restored. .....Md. Mahmudul Haque =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 123] Section 4(2) The Administrative Appellate Tribunal came into a finding that while passing the impugned decision the Administrative Tribunal failed to consider that the departmental proceeding against respondent No.1 was not initiated and disposed of legally and that the Administrative Tribunal arrived at a wrong finding in disallowing the case causing serious miscarriage of justice. The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. .....Janata Bank & another =VS= Md. Minhaj Uddin Ahmed & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 178] Section 4(2) The termination of the appellant was a “termination simpliciter” without attaching any stigma and that in fact no departmental proceedings were brought against the appellant in spite of serious allegations against him. In such a situation it would be illogical to sustain the order of the Administrative Tribunal thereby reinstating the appellant in service on an unwilling employer. Admittedly, the appellant was entitled to get 3 months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rightly allowed the appeal in part setting aside the judgement of the Administrative Tribunal. The respondent Grameen Bank is hereby directed to pay the appellant Md. Azizul Haque salary for two years at the rate which was paid to him as on the date of his termination of service. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs. .....Azizul Haque(Md.) =VS= Grameen Bank, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 51] Section 4(2), 6 Limitation– The finding of the Administrative Tribunal in respect of limitation in filing the cases is wrong and contrary to the provision of the 2nd proviso to section 4(2) of the Act. The respondents were dismissed from service following the procedures as contained in Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and as such the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeals, which, however, did not consider the question of limitation at all. We find substance in all the appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal affirming the decision of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. .....Ministry of Finance =VS= Md. Mominur Rahman, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 335] Section 4 Considering the legal position the Administrative:Tribunal found that the case was filed well within time. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also came to the finding that the respondent had option to move the Director-General under Rule 1725 of the Railway Establishment Code which has been accordingly done and the case has been filed within six months from the order passed by the Director-General. No illegality and wrong has been committed by the Tribunals below. Director-General/ Secretary, Railway Division and others vs Md Elahi Baksha 6 BLC (AD) 94. Section 4 Transfer of a trade union leader—Plea of, protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority—Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C.—The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal which has the full power to give complete relief to applicant. The right of a trade union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIIII of 1969) S. 47B Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2). Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another; 10 BLD (AD) 71. Section 4, 65 So law is now settled that except on the limited scope a writ petition involving question of determination of the question of the matters relating to term and condition of service of a person in the service of the Republic is not entertainable untreatable by the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution Khalilur Rahman A. S. P. S. B vs Md. Kamrul Ahsan (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil)3 ADC 18 Section 4 The Mill authority was of the view that it was within their competence and jurisdiction to allow selection grade scale of Tk.625-45-1315 to the petitioner and they were also of the view that the audit objection raised in this respect should be waived and ignored. It may be mentioned that the relevant Mill authority without taking any instruction from BJMC was competent to take the decision in question i.e. giving selection grade to an employee of the Mill. There is no allegation that the petitioner played any deceptive role in the matter or granting selection grade of scale to him. Md. Sadequr Rahman vs Munawar Jute Mills Ltd. (M. M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 3 ADC 609 "Because the employees of the Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank are subject to the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981, the writ petition is not maintainable at their instance and High Court Division erred in not deciding the question though the ground was specifically taken in the affidavit-in-opposition and argued at the hearing of the writ petition. Because the Board of Directors of the Bank in their meeting dated 14.6.2004 (263rd meeting) kept their decision open for the Chairman's consideration and, as such, it was not final and the Chairman having disagreed with the Board on the ground that the Boards traveled beyond the Padannoti Nitimala in the matter of marking on Field Experience (which is violation of the Nitimala dated 17.4.2004) High Court Division erred in deciding the question. The Chairman, Board vs Md. Abdul Motaleb (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury. J)(Civil) 3 ADC 629 Section 4 (2) Against an order of his removal from service passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh alleging illegally removed from his service. Whether the comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh was the competent authority to pass the order of removal of the respondent from service. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs Abdul Latif Chokder (Latifur Rahman J)(Civil) 3 AD 673 Challenging that the promotion alleged to have been given on the basis of seniority to the respondents with retrospective effect. The Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction and power to give any consequential relief as to seniority and promotion.Md. Sarwar-vs-Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Civil) 3 ADC 874 Section 4, 6 Law is now settled that except on the limited scope a writ petition involving question of determination of the question of the matters relating to term and condition of service of a person in the service of the Republic is not entertainable by the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. Khalilur Rahman A. S. P. S. B vs Md. Kamru Ahsan (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 2 ADC 803 Section 4(1) Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 Section 4(1) Mr. Mahbubcy Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar­gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum­bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main­taining the punishment of the respon­dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find­ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg­ments of this Division deserve reconsid­eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sin ha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 Section 4(2) The Code of Civil Procedure Order XXI Rule 37 and 38 r/w Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 4(2) Compulsory retirement with giving all the due service benefits–– Since the Agrani Bank was not complying with the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the respondent filed Miscellaneous A.T. Case No. 8 of 2008 (Execution) under order XXI Rule 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon hearing the parties the application was allowed by order dated 17.01.2012 directing the [07]concerned authorities to pay all the dues to the respondent up to 26.10.2008, the date on which he was reinstated. This order was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgement dated 12.02.2013. ––It is patently clear that Agrani Bank Limited has not complied with the earlier order passed by the Administrative Tribunal which was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. That order, having not been challenged, is binding upon the Agrani Bank Limited. .....Agrani Bank Limited =VS= Md. Salek Uddin, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 179] Section 4 Petitioners have not been given· any right· under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hajizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147. Section 4 In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65. Section 4(2) Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 117(1), 117(2) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 4(2) The Administrative Tribunal cannot direct the Government to amend the law as well as it cannot direct the Government to give promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub- Assistant Settlement Officer because the promotion is not a right–– It appears from words used in the order of the High Court Division that the Administrative Tribunal by its decision directed the concerned authority to take steps by amending respective “Bidhimala” for giving promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub-Assistant Settlement Officer. In fact, by the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal directed to amend the law in giving positive relief of the writ petitioners which can not be allowed. The Administrative Tribunal cannot direct the Government to amend the law as well as it cannot direct the Government to give promotion of the writ petitioners in the post of Kanungo/ Sub- Assistant Settlement Officer because the promotion is not a right.–– The writ respondents may consider the case of writ petitioners following the provisions of law, if they are at all entitled. .....Rabiul Karim(Md.) =VS= Golam Morshed Khan, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 272] Section 4(2) Even though the petitioner conspicu- ously kept silent as to on which exact date his aforesaid appeal was rejected by the respondent No.2 but he, in his representation dated 21.07.92 addressed to the respondent No.3 property for re- instating him in service, at para 11 men- tioned that "পুলিশ সুপার কর্তৃক চাকুরী হইতে অপসারন করার পর ডি,আই, জি অব পুলিশের নিকট আপীল করিয়াও কোন সুফল পাইনি" which indi- cates that his aforesaid departmental ap- peal dated 26.05.82 has already been rejected and further even if it is con- ceded that such appeal was not rejected then in the absence of any decision of the higher administrative authority on the departmental appeal filed by the pe- titioner, the filling of Administrative Tribunal Case No.50 of 1993 before the Administrative Tribunal was premature and further the respondent No. 1, at para 11 of his written statement filed before the Administrative Tribunal, stated that "অভিযুক্ত এস, আইকে বিধি মোতাবেক ১৮-৫-৮২ তারিখ হইতে চাকুরী হইতে অপসারণ করা হয়। তাহার। বিরুদ্ধে আনীত অভিযোগ তদন্তে প্রমানিত হওয়ায়। তৎকালীন উপ মহাপুলিশ পরিদর্শক খুলনা রেঞ্চ, খুলনা মহোদয় অভিযুক্ত প্রাক্তন এস,আই, আনোয়ার হোসেন এর আপীল আবেদন নাকচ করেন যাহার আদেশ নং- ৬৬৮৭ তারিখ ৮/১১/৮২ ইং।" Md. Anwar Hos sain vs. Superintendent of Police (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 6 ADC 780 Section 4(2) Admittedly the petitioner went on LPR on 15th May, 1998 and he instituted the petition just four days prior to that date. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record observed that the cause of action for filing the petition arose on 23rd De- cember, 1997 when the petitioner's prayer for promotion was rejected but he did not prefer any appeal against non-action of his representation and therefore, the petition is barred under the proviso to section 4(2) of the Ad- ministrative Appellate Tribunal. A.M. Nurunnabi VS. Government of Bangladesh (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 750 Section 4(2) On careful scrutiny of the record, the Appellate Tribunal found that the au- thority illegally and arbitrarily removed the respondent from service by order dated 16.11.1974 passed by the sub-Di- visional Selection Committee which had no legal authority to do so, on the plea that he had no requisite qualifica- tion to be the Headmaster of the school and admittedly he had sufficient qualifi- cation to be an Assistant Teacher of the school, but the authority without giving him that the opportunity in a summary manner threw him out of service/whim- sically and illegally causing untold suf- ferings to him; Ministry of Education Sri Radhika Ranjan Shil (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 10 ADC 193 Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka Allegations of misconduct, a depart- mental proceeding was started against the respondent, a police officer and ul- timately by an order dated 10.05.2001, he was compulsorily retired from serv- ice. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Alauddin (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J) (Civil) 7 ADC 641 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, Dismissal from Service In the departmental proceeding the main allegation brought against the petitioner was that he kidnapped a school teacher who was wife of another man and mother of two children and forcibly compelled her to divorce her husband and thereafter married her forcibly against her will. Md. Kabir Hossain vs. Government of the People's (Nazmun Ara Sultana J)(Civil) 9 ADC 418 Section 4 The learned member of the Administra- tive Tribunal allowed the case of the pe titioner with the observation that the S.P., Bogra was not a proper authority to draw up the departmental procceding against the petitioner as, during that pe- riod, the petitioner was not working under him. The Government vs. Bemal Kumar Chaki (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 691 Section 4(1) Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar- gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum- bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while main- taining the punishment of the respon- dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find- ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the judg- ments of this Division deserve reconsid- eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 Section 4(2) Petitioner was appointed as the Postal Operator in Letter Packet Section in Chittagong Foreign Post Office. He worked there till his forced retirement under the order dated 15.07.1998. The petitioner was suspended on 01.08.1995 and a departmental proceeding was started against him. Kamol Krishna Das vs. Government (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 9 ADC 968 Section 4 and 6 It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as electrician in 1991 and thereafter, he was transferred to the post of mechanic in 1998, and the scale of pay of electri- cian being equal to the post of me- chanic. Md. Ashraf Uddin Khan vs. Md. Rafiqul Islam (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 9 ADC 851 Section 4 and 6 That the respondent was appointed as MLSS in the Bangladesh Civil Service, Administration Academy in 1987. Sub. sequently he was promoted to the post of library assistant-cum-typist on 19th February, 1989. In May, 1992 an objec tion was raised in his pay bill on the ground that his promotion was made not in accordance with law. Thereafter, he was reverted to the post of MLSS after taking opinion from the Ministry of Law. He unsuccessfully preferred a de- partmental appeal and then a petition before the Administrative Tribunal for redress. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Ismail (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 9 ADC 640 Section 4(2) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent for misappropri- ation of 339 mds 12 seers of rice and 668 mds 29 seers of wheat in or around mid 1971. The respondent thereupon without defending the charges tendered resignation from his service on 18th Oc- tober, 1971. Government of Bangladesh vs. A.B.M. Siddique Mia (S.K. Sinha J)(Civil) 9 ADC 201 Section 4 We would like to give more explicit reply to the questions raised by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner. It is important to note that amended proviso 2 was added before the original 2nd proviso and as a result, the 2nd proviso was relegated to the 3rd proviso. The 1st proviso, in essence, provides that where there is a higher ad- ministrative authority having the power to set aside, vary or modify an order, de- cision or action to be challenged before the Administrative Tribunal, the Admin- istrative Tribunal shall not entertain a case until such higher authority takes a decision on the matter. Md. Shahjahan Atmasder VS. Government of Bangladesh (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 9 ADC 237 The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, Dismissal from service The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued before us to the effect that the contesting respondent did not raise any question of defect of party in the original Administrative Tribunal Case and as such the Administrative Appel- late Tribunal was not justified and cor- rect at all to dismiss the case on the ground of defect of party. Z. M. Mostafa Kamal vs. Secretary, Ministry of Fi nance Bangladesh (Nazmun Ara Sul tana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 41 Section 4(2) As a Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector and was granted Senior Sca on 15.07.1981; that on 04.02.1982 he joined on promotion as Additional Deputy Commissioner. By an order dated 22.05.1983, however, he was compulsorily retired from service under Martial Law Order No.9; that in view of the representation made by him from time to time against the said order of punishment, the Review Forum constituted under Article IA of the Martial Law Order No.9 for consideration of the representations, made a recommendation on 12.10.1992 "for setting aside the order of retirement dated, 22.05.1982 and for his reinstatement in service maintaining his seniority and continuity of service and treating the period of ab- sence from duty as on leave without pay"; that thereupon the Government by the impugned order dated 23.01.1994 reinstated him in service although ille- gally directing in paragraph No.3 thereof that the period of his absence would be treated as on leave without pay; that on receipt of the said order dated 23.01.1994 i.e. on that very day he submitted his joining report and has been serving as such. But on 20.07.1994 submitted a representation to the Hon'ble President for payment of his ar- rear salary and allowance; that the rep- resentation was rejected by an order dated 08.10.1995. The Government of Bangladesh vs. Abul Hashem Khan (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 8 ADC 271 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 4(2) Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tri- bunal Act before the Administrative Tri- bunal, Dhaka being Administrative Tribunal Case No. 145 of 2006 claiming pension benefits. According to him after completion of 57 years in service, he went on LPR with effect from 19th Jan- uary, 2005 and thereafter, he retired from the service. After expiry of one year, the authority did not pay his serv- ice benefits on some baseless allega- tions. Government of Bangladesh vs. Ansarul Huq (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 434 Section 4(1) Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioners, has taken us to the judgments and ar- gued that since the appeals had arisen out of the same judgment, it was incum- bent upon the Administrative Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of both the appeals analogously in order to avoid conflicting decisions, and as a matter of I fact, it had delivered two conflicting judgments, which escaped the notice of this Division while disposing of the leave petitions and the same is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that the Administrative Tribunal while maintaining the punishment of the respon- dent came to a definite finding that some of the charges brought against the respondent had been satisfactorily proved but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal without reversing those find- ings allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent mechanically. In view of the above, it is contended that the juag- ments of this Division deserve reconsid- eration for ends of justice. Government vs. Md Masud Miah (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 10 ADC 60 Article 4(2) Administrative Appellate Tribunal Case The petitioner hereof as Teacher, Exper- imental School, filed Administrative Tribunal Case No.293 of 1999 praying for a direction upon the opposite party to upgrade the position of the petitioner to Class-1 Gazetted (non-cadre) post like Instructors of Primary Training In- stitute. Md. Jahangir Kabir vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secre- ary (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rah- nan J) (Civil) 6 ADC 828 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 It is, however, true that the petitioner was suspended from service by an order dated 02.08.2000 and that he was dis- missed from service by an order dated 06.06.2001 giving retrospective from 02.08.2000. Final order of dismissal dated 06.06.2001 could not have any retrospective effect and it was to be ef- fective from the date of final order of dismissal, that is, 06.06.2001. There- fore, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been dismissed from service on and from 06.06.2001 and not from 02.02.2000. Mir Abdul Qaium vs. Gov- ernment of Bangladesh (Syed Mahmud Hossain J) (Civil) 10 ADC 407 Section 4(2) Praying for an order setting aside the order of demotion of the petitioner ...(2) It appears that the Administrative Ap- pellate Tribunal considered the provi- sion of Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 and held that the application before the tri- bunal was barred by limitation and set aside the judgment of the Administra- tive Tribunal. S. M. Mosharaf Hossain vs. Sonali Bank (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 879 The Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that the Divisional Electrical Engi- neer Office issued a letter on 29.01.2001 requesting 11 subordinate offices to inform about the demands of the petitioner and out of 11 offices only Sub Assistant Engineer (Electrical) gave clearance and the office of the Financial Adviser, Rajshahi gave no objections and no clearance certificate was pro- duced by other offices. The Administra- tive Appellate Tribunal accordingly held that, therefore, it cannot be claimed that "No Demand certificate" was submitted as required by the authority for finaliz- ing the pension and gratuity of the peti- tioner before the tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal al- lowed the appeal in part with modifica- tions. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Jillur Rahman (M. M. Ruhul Amin CJ) (Civil) 7 ADC67 Section 4 Period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal– This Court in a number of cases earlier decided that it is the 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, 1980 read with the period of limitation as mentioned in the 3rd proviso, i.e. two months plus six months which shall govern the period of limitation in filing an application before the Administrative Tribunal and a case filed before the Administrative Tribunal after the expiry of the said period (two months + six months) shall be barred by limitation. We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the case filed before the Administrative Tribunal was barred by limitation. When admittedly, the case in hand was filed before the Administrative Tribunal long after the period of six months after the expiry of the period of two months from the date of filing the departmental appeal as provided in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, the opposite parties appellant could very much raise the point of limitation in the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal rightly entertained the same, and decided the point against the petitioner. We find no merit in the leave petitions and accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. …AKM Jalaluddin Ahmed =VS= Ministry of Education, BD, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 335] The decision of the Administrative Tribunal was dated 12.10.2002 and the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was filed on 23.4.2003 which is beyond the period of six months stipulated in section 6(2A) of the Act, 1980. The result the appeal is disposed of. The order of the Administrative Tribunal as well as the judgement and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal are set aside. The order passed by the Government, being the appellate authority, is hereby held as not valid in law and is of no legal effect. The order of the concerned departmental authority sentencing the appellant to a lower rank for a period of two years is upheld. The appellant will receive all the service benefits that accrued to him, apart from the period of two years of punishment ordered by the departmental authority. …Anwar Hossain Biswas =VS= Government of Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 46] Section 4(3) Administrative tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters when a person in the service of the Republic is aggrieved by any order or decision in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights or by any action taken in relation to him as a person in the service of the Republic. In the present case, the writ-petitioner-respondent No.1 is a person in the service of the Republic as per the provision of section 4(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 and as such the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter regarding the terms and conditions of the service of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1. ...Secretary, Posts & Telecom Div. & anr Vs. Shudangshu Shekhar & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] AD 11 Sections 4, 6(2) The case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case– The Appellate Tribunal observed that from the amended prayers it appeared that cause of action for filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal arose on 13.08.2003 whereas the petition was filed on 15.07.2002. So the case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case. It further appears that while the case was filed the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was pending, therefore, he had no cause of action to file the case. But the Tribunal failed to consider this factual aspect of the case, when it was not proper for the Tribunal to pass any order directing reinstatement of the petitioner. In view of the above Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the impugned decision which was done legally. This civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. ...Jalal(Md.) =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 86] Section 4-The transfer of respondent No. 2 being a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, the legality or otherwise of the order of transfer of the respondent No. 2' is exclusively triable by the Administrative Tribunal. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation vs Chairman, Labour Court 41 DLR 341. Section 4-Impugned order of transfer relating to the appellant's service can only be agitated before the Administrative Tribunal. Abdul Mannan Talukder vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 42 DLR (AD) 104. Section 4 Promotion being part of the terms and conditions of the service a grievance in respect of the same undoubtedly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Junnur Rahman vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha (BSRS) and others 50 DLR 39. Section 4-If one Branch of the Department of the Government is not following the lawful order of the hierarchy of the Governmental authority, definitely the person who is aggrieved can come before this Court and pray for direction or declaration to implement, fulfil or obey the lawful order of the Government which the Administrative Tribunal is not competent to do. Matiur Rahman (Md) vs Bangladesh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment of the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & ors. 50 DLR 357. Section 4- Petitioners have not been given any right under the Act to move the Tribunal to implement the judgment of the Appellate Division and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal given in respect of a different person who filed cases not in a representative capacity or in the nature of a group or class action but as an individual applicant. Hafizuddin (Md) and three others vs Bangladesh Bank, represented by Governor and others 49 DLR (AD) 147. Section 4- Return of plaint in a matter relating to persons in the service of the Republic-Amendment replacing a cause of action, after it had ceased to exist, by a new cause of action so as to change the nature of the suit and the cause of action will not be allowed, and if allowed, cannot relate back to the date of filing the suit. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court having been vested in the Administrative Tribunal by the promulgation of special statute the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of Bank employees has been ousted, and in that view of the matter, the plaint was rightly returned by the civil Court for presentation to the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction. Monsur Ali vs Janata Bank 43 DLR 394. Section 4-Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal-It can strike down an order for violation of natural justice and for infringement of fundamental rights but it cannot strike down any bar or rule on the ground of its constitutionality. Duty of court is to see the right given under Article 102(1) is not frittered away or misused. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 111. Section 4- For legal remedies in service matters civilian employees in Defence Services can well invoke the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Ishaquddin Ahmed@ Md Ishaquddin Ahmed vs Commandant, School of Armour and Centre, Bogra Cantonment, Bogra and others 51 DLR (AD) 144. Section 4-The financial benefit during the period of dismissal cannot be claimed as a matter of right when such dismissal is set aside on the procedural defect as to show cause notice. Sujit Kumar Majumdar vs Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and others 51 DLR (AD) 145. Section 4- Question of payment of subsistence to the government servant during suspension, relates to terms and conditions of service within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Sheikh Abdul Hakim vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 333. Section 4- Unless a final decision is made by higher Administrative Authority after the conclusion of the proceeding under challenge an application cannot be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal, but before such decision to be made by the authority, the right of the petitioner in the service of the Republic and his remuneration, cannot be curtailed by the respondent who had no legal authority to do so. Therefore, the departmental proceeding is held to be without any jurisdiction and it must be perished under the wheel of judicial review. Shahjahan Howlader (Md) va Bazlur Rahman & another 52 DLR 358. Section 4-Order passed by the Tribunal is declaratory in nature and there was no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and as such order passed by the Tribunal is not executable. AKM Ali Imam vs DG, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, & another 54 DLR (AD) 5. Section 4- The Subordinate Judge could have split up the suit for trying the second cause which is for damages for defamatory statement and for implicating the plaintiff in a false case The claim on account of tort committed by the defendant can be tried by the civil Court. Khandkar Abul Hussain vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 467. Section 4- In altering the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years under sub-rule 2(c) of rule 4 of the Rules and thereupon in making the order for the reinstatement of the respondent the Tribunals did not commit any illegality as it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to see the proportionality of the sentence in the given facts of the case. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Afzal Hossain Ansari 55 DLR (AD) 65 Section 4-The authority imparting any punishment upon a delinquent staff has a duty to see that he has been dealt with in accordance with law and following the principles of natural justice. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post, Telegraph and Telecommunication vs Abul Khair 56 DLR (AD) 183. Sections 4 and 6-Jurisdiction-The Administrative Tribunal and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal have been established with limited jurisdictions and limited power. The Tribunal gratuitously granting relief acts in excess of its jurisdiction. Quazi Nazrul Islam vs Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation 45 DLR (AD) 106 Section 4(1)-The remedy against the orders of transfer lies before the Administrative Tribunal and not under Article 102 of the Constitution. Shamsul Haque (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 62. Section 4(2)- When the first proceeding under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 ended inconclusively due to expiry of time limit and merely on technical ground, subsequent proceeding on the self-same or fresh additional charge is not unauthorised by law and such a proceeding does not amount to double jeopardy nor it is incompetent in law. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegraph, Bangladesh Secretariat. Dhaka vs AKM Yousuf Mia & others 50 DLR (AD) 200. Section 4(2)- When the charges against a Government servant are found established and he is given reasonable opportunity of defence and dismissed with the approval of the President, the omission to express the order in the name of the President being mere technicality, the order of dismissal does not call for interference. Shahinur Alam (Md) vs People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR (AD) 211. Section 4(2)-Time spent on review before the President under the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1985 was to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation. Jahangir Kabir (Md) vs Bangladesh 48 DLR (AD) 156. Section 4(2) For the purpose of limitation of moving the Administrative Tribunal against the order of punishment the respondent was entitled to avail of the benefit of the date of the Memo communicating result of the appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Md Abdul Karim 47 DLR (AD) 146. Section 4(2)- The Administrative Appellate Tribunal was therefore patently wrong in holding that the limitation could not be counted from 14- 9-1989 when the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the appellant's application preferred against the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police on 21-10-1988. It seems that the Appellate Tribunal being unaware of the aforesaid Ordinance and under some misconception of the provisos above committed error in deciding the point of limitation. Shaikh Mustainul Haque vs Inspector General of Police and others 47 DLR (AD) 157. Section 4(2)- Proviso On a reference to Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Rules, 1976, it appears that successive appeals which were filed by the respondent were not addressed to the proper appellate authority and those were also filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh vs Abdul Latif Chokder 49 DLR (AD) 29. Section 4(2)- Limitation-Time spent under review proceeding-In a case like the present one where there is no provision for appeal and where under review the President has power to make any order as he deems fit, a Government servant will be entitled to the remedy under Rule 23. AKM Nurul Alam vs Bangladesh 46 DLR (AD) 113. Section 4(2)- Jurisdiction of Adminis- trative Tribunal Tribunal shall have no power to entertain an application unless it is filed within six months of the impugned order. In the instant suit the impugned order was made 4 years earlier than the date of incorporation of the petitioner bank in the schedule of the Act. Consequently the cause is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That being so, the suit does not come within the mischief of Article 117. DGM, Rupali Bank vs Shah Jalal 43 DLR 193. Section 4(2)-Proviso Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal Such Tribunal cannot entertain any application by the aggrieved party unless his appeal before the competent authority is disposed of. This legal bar cannot be overcome unless the appeal pending before the Government is disposed of. It is not known why Government- respondent is shockingly slow in the matter of taking decision in the petitioner's appeal. The Rule upon the government is therefore made absolute with the direction to dispose of the appeal within 30 days. Moulvi Gholam Moula vs Bangladesh 44 DLR 195. Section 4(2)-The Rules of the Janata Bank only provide for certain benefits as are admissible to a Government servant. Rule 389 of BSR Part 1 provides that there is no bar to the re-employment of an officer after regaining his health after invalid pension. But the Rule has no legal application to Janata Bank employees. General Manager, Janata Bank vs Md Shah Alam Sarker 51 DLR (AD) 138. Section 4(2)- The petitioner cannot have the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act while computing the period of limitation in filing application before the Administrative Tribunal, Abul Bashar vs Investment Corporation of Bangladesh and another 52 DLR (AD) 178. Section 4(2)-The representation of respondent having been turned down by the National Board of Revenue, the higher administrative authority in his case, the question of preferring any further appeal does not arise. Government of Bangladesh vs Nurul Haque Miah and another 53 DLR (AD) 59. Sections 4(2) and 13-Decree of Civil Court having already been executed after the appellant was reinstated in service, his subsequent prayer for other benefits do not fall in the category of any pending suit, case, application and appeal. The Tribunals took a wrong view that the other reliefs are ancillary and consequential reliefs emanating from the decree of the Civil Court and wrongly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in the matter. Khandaker Golam Najib vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Agrani Bank and others 49 DLR (AD) 109. Section 4(3)-Civilian employees in the defence services-Administrative Tribunal was not correct in holding that they belonged to the defence services. Against the mistaken orders the petitioners were at liberty to prefer appeals before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Their applications under the writ jurisdiction are not maintainable. Abdul Latif vs Bangladesh 43 DLR 446 Sections 5 and 3-There is no command in the Constitution that the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is substitute or co-equal to the High Court Division. It is left to the legislature, after establishing the Tribunals, to make necessary provisions in this regard for the carrying out of the functions of the tribunals. Mujibur Rahman vs Bangladesh 44 DLR 111 Sections 5, 6 and 12 Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 Rule 4(6), 7(2)(c) r/w Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 135(2) Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1982 Rules 6, 6(7), 11 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 Sections 5, 6 and 12 Dismissing the appeal for default–– Appellate Division found that the appeal was filed back in the year 2003 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. But after long laps of time when the matter was fixed for hearing on 26.02.2008 none appeared for appellants. So, it is apparent that the appellant had lost his interest to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on an application for restoration of the appeal the same was also disallowed as the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not believe the plea of the learned Counsel of the appellant to have lost his personal case diary to be an acceptable extenuating circumstance. The above discussions it is abundantly clear that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly disallowed the said application for restoration following the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and Rules. .....Ministry of Forest, Bangladesh =VS= Kiran Sankar Sarker, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 447] Section 6(2) - Cause of action for filing the petition before the Administrative Tribunal arose on 13.08.2003 whereas the petition was filed on 15.07.2002. So the case was filed prematurely and on such view the Administrative Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case. The Appellate Division observed that it further appears that while the case was filed the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was pending, therefore, he had no cause of action to file the case. But the Tribunal failed to consider this factual aspect of the case, when it was not proper for the Tribunal to pass any order directing reinstatement of the petitioner. In view of the above Administrative Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by the impugned decision which was done legally. Thus the Appellate Division finds no merit in the petition. Accordingly, this civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Md. Jalal Vs.- Bangladesh and others. (Civil) 20 ALR (AD) 67-68 Section 6 (2) and 6 (2A)-According to section 6 (2) and 6 (2A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980, appeal against the impugned judgement, order or decision passed by the Administrative Tribunal must be filed in all circumstances not later than 6 months from the date of the impugned order or judgement. The Appellate Division held that the appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was beyond the period of limitation, and was, therefore, barred. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, the Appellate Division concludes that the judgement of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal requires interference, as being barred by limitation. The application before the Administrative Tribunal was also barred by limitation. The decision of the appellate authority being out of time is not valid in law and is of no legal effect. The order of punishment of reduction in rank of the appellant passed by the departmental authority, therefore, stands, Since the application before the Administrative Tribunal was not within time, the point regarding lack of consultation with the Public Service Commission before passing the impugned order of reduction to a lower rank cannot be agitated at this juncture. In the result the appeal is disposed of. The order of the Administrative Tribunal as well as the judgement and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal are set aside. The order passed by the Government, being the appellate authority, is hereby held as not valid in law and is of no legal effect. The order of the concerned departmental authority sentencing the appellant to a lower rank for a period of two years is upheld. Anwar Hossain Biswas -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 16 ALR (AD) 121-125 Section 6(2A) The present petitioners filed the above mentioned Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No.1. Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No.131 of 2005 with an application under section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 praying for con- donation of delay of 2 (two) months and 6 (six) days in filing the appeal. Go ernment of the People's vs. Md. Mizanur Rahman (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 846 Section 6A It is true that the Appellate Tribunal is not subordinate to the High Court Division but judicial decorum, propriety and discipline demand that when an interpretation of law is given by the High Court Division all Courts and Tribunals in Bangladesh should abide by such interpretation until such interpretion is set aside or varied by the Appellate Division. Miss Shaheda Khatun vs Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka (A.T.M. Afzal C J) 2 ADC 850 19 MLR(AD)225: Government of Bangladesh Vs. Md. Khan Harun being dead his heirs Mrs. Anowara Begum alias Maina & others: Section 6(2A) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980: Appeal against an order or decision of an Administrative Tribunal may within 3 (three) months from the making the order or decision can be filed and Sub-section (2A) of Section 6 by Act XXIV has further provided that an appeal may be admitted after the period of 3 (three) months specified in that Sub-section but obviously not later than 6 (six) months, if the Appellant can satisfy the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. (Para-11, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah). Ref: 51 DLR(AD)253. Section 6 (3) In view of the provisions of section 6 (3) as quoted above it was within the jurisdiction in the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in altering the major penalty of dismissal from service to the reduction in rank of the respondent...... (13). Bangladesh vs Md. Idrish Miah (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 2 ADC 905 It is by now well settled that consent or waiver cannot give jurisdiction where there is inherent lack or absence of it and in that case the order is a nullity. Bangladesh vs Md. Shafiuddin, son of late Md. Asuruddin (Mainur Reza Chowdhury J)(Civil) 2 ADC 953 Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure That the petitioner having filed the plaint showing cause of action on the basis of facts alleged, the truth of which is to be determined on evidence to be adduced during trial, the High Court Division committed error in not holding that the trial court was wrong in rejecting the plaint. He thereafter submits that the High Court Division was in error in dismissing the appeal upon an erroneous view that there is no scope for amendment of letter of credit. Messrs Al-Haj Oil Mills Ltd. vs. Willmer Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J(Civil) 3 ADC 953 The Application under order 39 rules 1,2,5(A)3, Section 151 Revisional application by staying operation of the order.......(1) to now- That he is a sub-lessee under the company, the authorized leaseholder, and that the period of the lease of the defendant No.1 being upto 31st December, 2007, will expire shortly, directed the learned District Judge, to hear and dispose of the appeal on priority basis taking all the material points into consideration and till disposal of the appeal stayed the operation of the above order dated 26.11.2006......(5) Hefazatur Rahman Tipu vs. Forkanul Islam and others (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 5ADC 483 Appellate Court can modify past decree High Court Division committed no error in placing the plot Nos. 209/3, 214 and 215 in the residuary saham list as because the appellante Court passed decree modifying the trial Court's decree to the extent that the plot Nos. 209/3, 214 and 215 are left out of partition and that these plots were not expunged from the schedule of the plaint. Abdul Jabbar & others vs Surjaban Bibi & others (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 2ADC 907 Section 6(2), 6(2A) The appeal so filed was barred by time and as such an application for condonation of delay was filed. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Shahin Reza (Md. Ruhul Amin CJ) (Civil) 5 ADC 592 Section 6(2), 6(2A) An application for condonation of delay of 6 months and 12 days but the said application was rejected...(2) Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Amdadul Huq (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5 ADC 657 We have noticed on previous occasions that the learned judge of the High Court Division dispose of the case in the man- ner,as the instant one, which can in no way be considered as the accepted way of disposal of the case by the Court of the kind the learned judge is a judge The accepted and settled principle is that a Court either appellate or revision- al is required to dispose of the case upon assigning reasoning because of which it is persuaded either to affirm the judgment of the Courts below or to sel aside the judgment of the Courts below. The learned judge in disposing of the instant case has not given any reason from which it can be said that the result arrived at by the learned Judge is on the basis of the reasoning that persuaded him to set aside the judgment of the Courts below. We hope in future the learned would dispose of the case in the accepted manner i.e. upon discussion of the materials on record and thereupon assigning reason in support of his judgment. Mosammat Ashrafee Begum vs. Md. Siddiqur Rahman Patwari (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5 ADC 659 For a declaration that the wasiatnama dated 25.10.1976 executed by Namiran Nessa is illegal, void,inoperative,fraudulent and not binding upon the plain- tiffs...(2) Mosammat Namiran Nessa vs. Aftaruddin & others (M.M.Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5 ADC 662 The appellate Court held that the deed of exchange in question was entered into only to deprive the plaintiff of his right of preemption and the property of exchange was not equal in value. The areas of the properties exchanged are not same although both the properties are situated within the Municipal area. Md. Iftekher Uddin Bhuiyan vs Ranjit Kumar Paul (M.M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5 ADC 665 Rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 1529 days in filling civil revisional application ..(1) Government of the Peoples' VS. Manindra Kumar Paul (Md. Tafazzul Islam J)(Civil) 5 ADC 667 Section 6,7,12 Against the order of the Administrative Tribunal the present petitioners filed Appeal No.43 of 2005 before the Ad- ministrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka. The appeal was dismissed for default on 19.01.2001 as none appeared for the ap- pellants when the same was called on for hearing. The petitioners filed an ap- plication before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka for restoration of the appeal after setting aside the order of default. The Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the ap- plication on the ground that the same was filed out of time by 7 days. The Ap- pellate Tribunal further observed that the appeal being under special statute, it had no power to condone the delay; hence, this petition for leave to appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Abdul Karim (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 8 ADC 589 Section 6(1) It is seen from the provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act that an appeal lies from an order of the Administrative Tribunal. In the instant case the Administrative Tribunal refused the prayer for ad-interim order restraining the authority from granting promotion to the respondents. So the respondent Nos. 1-11 herein if were aggrieved by the order so passed by the Administrative Tribunal they were required as per provision of section 6(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act to file appeal, if any, they would have thought fit. But instead of doing that they were not well advised to file the writ petition seeking the relief identical to the relief sought in the Administrative Tribunal case with the sole object of having an ad-interim order restraining the authority from taking steps for the promotion of the Assistant Superintendent of Police to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police. Khalilur Rahman, ASP SB, Dhaka vs Md Kamrul Ahsan 10 BLC (AD) 193. Section 6A In the instant case PSC recommended for regularisation of the opposite parties No. 3-86 on 28-1-1998 and thereupon the said opposite parties became the members of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Enforcement: Police Cadre) and that being so in law they can only claim seniority in the Cadre Service on and from 28-1-1998 and no other date. Khalilur Rahman (Md) PPM and others vs Md Kamrul Ahsan and others 8 BLC (AD) 80. Section 6(2) Aggrieved person and necessary parties There appears to be no guidance either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to determine the question of necessary parties. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including those of Order 1. Except as referred to in the Act and the Rules do not seem to. apply to the Tribunal. But still then as a general rule it cannot be disputed that all necessary parties must be impleaded in a case so that a tribunal may effectually adjudicate on all matters before it. As the appellants are claiming their confirmation in the post of A.S.Ps. and they are seeking relief against the Government alone it is for the Government to refute the same and to protect the interest of other employees and as such it cannot be said that the case is bad for defect of parties for not impleading respondent Nos. 1 — 15. Respondent Nos. 1—15 nevertheless are aggrieved’ person within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Act in that the order of the Tribunal was likely to be prejudicial to them in the matter of seniority. Their right of appeal cannot, therefore, be denied. Md. Abdul Mannan and ors Vs. Mr. Hasan Mahmud Khondker and others, 16 BLD (AD) 147 Section 6(2A) The present petitioners filed the above mentioned Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No.l, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No.l31 of 2005 with an application under section 6(2A) of the Administra­tive Tribunal Act, 1980 praying for con­donation of delay of 2 (two) months and 6 (six) days in filing the appeal. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs. Md. Mizan ur-Rahman (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 846 Section 6(2) Appeal must be filed in 3 months. The aggrieved person may prefer an appeal within 3(three) months from the date of order or decision before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal has no power to extend the period of Limitation. Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Ansarul Huq 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 209 Section 6(2A) The present petitioners filed the above mentioned Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal No.l, Dhaka in Administrative Tribunal Case No.l31 of 2005 with an application under section 6(2A) of the Administra­tive Tribunal Act, 1980 praying for con­donation of delay of 2 (two) months and 6 (six) days in filing the appeal. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs. Md. Mizan ur-Rahman (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 846 Section 6(2) Appeal must be filed in 3 months. The aggrieved person may prefer an appeal within 3(three) months from the date of order or decision before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal has no power to extend the period of Limitation. Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Ansarul Huq 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 209 Section 6, Sub Section 2 and 2 (A) The defendant though claimed that they were on permissive possession in the suit land from Seroogi, the original owner of the suit land since 1936 but could not produce any material document or rent receipt to substantiate their claim of permissive possession of original owner Seroogi. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and under the circumstances they could get a declaration of title against the defendant on the basis of their documents. The plaintiff having filed all the material documents showing the title to the suit land includ- ing the Khatian being an evidence of possession as well as collateral evidence of title, was entitled to recovery of pos- session from the defendant, who under the circumstances, go to show that was in permissive possession in the suit land as asserted by the plaintiff. Kazi Muhammad Khokon VS. Deputy Secretary (Registration) Ministry of Law (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 4 ADC 228 Section 6-When the petitioner contested. the case before the Tribunal and has not preferred any appeal and when he had a remedy before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal writ petition. was rightly rejected. Government of Bangladesh vs Member, Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka and others 53 DLR (AD) 112 Section 6A-Under the new dispensation that Article 103 of the Constitution shall apply in relation to Administrative Appellate Tribunal the petitioners have only the right to seek leave for appeal. The Court's power under clause (3) of Article 103 is very wide-question of retrospectivity or prospectivity of section 6A of the Act of 1981 has got no relevance. Bangladesh Bank and another vs Administrative Appellate Tribunal 44 DLR (AD) 239. Section 7-The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. Kamrul Hasan vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR (AD) 44. Section 7 Powers and Procedure of Tribunals Although the Administrative Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court and the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable for specified purposes to the proceedings before it, yet it is not a Court proper and it does not possess all the powers of a court provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. Kamrul Hasan vs. Bangladesh and others, 16 BLD (AD) 35 Section 7 Powers and Procedure of Tribunals Although the Administrative Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court and the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable for specified purposes to the proceedings before it, yet it is not a Court proper and it does not possess all the powers of a court provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Administrative Tribunal has no power to grant interim relief in respect of a case pending before it for final adjudication. Kamrul Hasan vs. Bangladesh and others, 16 BLD (AD) 35 Sections 10-12 Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12. Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no ·proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court. Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No. SRO 92-L/82-JIV /IT-3/81 dated 12-3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538. Section 10A Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 10A r/w Administrative Appellate Tribunals Rules, 1982 Section 7 Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 102 Penal Code, 1860 Section 166 The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal–Appellate Division is of the opinion that the respondents cannot avail themselves of the remedy provided under article 102 of the Constitution for having a direction upon the Administrative Tribunal to file a complaint under section 166 of the Penal Code. The High Court Division has not been entrusted with the power of deciding as to how the decisions and orders of the Administrative Tribunals will be executed. The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal is quite competent to come to a decision about the mode of implementation of its own decisions and orders. In case of failure, the said writ-petitioner-respondent has been given further remedy under section 10A of the Act. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Maleque Miah, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 12] Sections 10-12 Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12. Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no ·proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court. Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No. SRO 92-L/82-JIV /IT-3/81 dated 12-3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538. Section 10A Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 Section 10A r/w Administrative Appellate Tribunals Rules, 1982 Section 7 Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 Article 102 Penal Code, 1860 Section 166 The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal–Appellate Division is of the opinion that the respondents cannot avail themselves of the remedy provided under article 102 of the Constitution for having a direction upon the Administrative Tribunal to file a complaint under section 166 of the Penal Code. The High Court Division has not been entrusted with the power of deciding as to how the decisions and orders of the Administrative Tribunals will be executed. The execution of the decisions and the orders of the Administrative Tribunal primarily lies with the Tribunal itself and thereafter, with the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal is quite competent to come to a decision about the mode of implementation of its own decisions and orders. In case of failure, the said writ-petitioner-respondent has been given further remedy under section 10A of the Act. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Maleque Miah, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 12] Sections 10-12-Judicial powers of the Tribunals have been laid down in sections 10-12. Section 10 provides that subject to this Act, no proceedings, order or decision of a Tribunal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court. Section 11 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 gives the Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. In exercise of the powers under section 12, the Government has in fact made the Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1982, by Notification No. SRO 92-L/82-JIV/IT-3/81 dated 12-3-1982, which have been published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1982. Saifur Rahman vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture 41 DLR 538. Section 10A-Order given by Administrative Appellate Tribunal-Maintainability of writ petition for enforcement of such order-The Administrative Tribunal can execute, functioning as an executing Court, its own decisions or orders and also the decisions and orders of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal following the provisions of Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of a decree. The petitioner has been given a further remedy by way of punishment for contempt of the Tribunal's authority. The petitioner having failed to exhaust such remedies his writ petition is not maintainable. Munshi Mozammel Hossain vs Post Master, Faridpur 43 DLR 415.