IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

         APPELLATE DIVISION

    Present:

  Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, Chief Justice   Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan

Mr. Justice M. Enayetur Rahim

CIVIL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2014

Arising out of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.641 of 2010

(From the judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4540 of 2003)

Sadharan Bima Corporation and another   …..….Appellants

                                                     -Versus-

Md. Rafiqul Islam and others   ...…Respondents

For the appellants For the respondents

:      Mr.  Tofailur  Rahman,  senior  Advocate, instructed by Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record.

:      Mr.  Md.  Munsurul  Hoque  Chowdhury,  senior Advocate,  instructed  by  Mr.  Md.  Mozibur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record.

Date of hearing : The 10th day of August, 2022

Date of judgment : The 24th day of August, 2022

JUDGMENT

Obaidul Hassan, J. This Civil Appeal by leave granting order dated 13.03.2014 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.641 of 2010 has been  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  26.10.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4540 of 2003.

The facts leading to the filing of this Civil Appeal, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner joined at Sadharan Bima Corporation as Junior Assistant on 31.12.1979 at Zonal Office, Rajshahi and after successful completion  of  1(one)  year  probation  period  his  service  was confirmed. The writ petitioner served in the same post at different Zonal Offices including Khulna and lastly posted at Bheramara Unit Office under Kushtia Branch. While serving at Bheramara Unit, the writ petitioner received office order vide memo No.mvexK/cÖkv/cÖ:/99/543

dated  21.07.1999  with  forwarding  letter  under  the  signature  of respondent No.5 putting him under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation  of  Tk.50,000.00  (fifty  thousand)  received  as premium against motor certificate.

Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the  respondent  No.5  vide  memo  No.mvexK/Kwb/c:Ö /99/641  dated 24.08.1999 asking the writ petitioner to show cause within 10(ten) days of receipt of the notice as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken  against  him  for  misappropriation  of  Tk.56,718.19  (fifty  six thousand  seven  hundred  eighteen  and  paisa  nineteen  only)  for showing less amount in the duplicates of certificates issued against motor premium certificate, but no penalty was proposed against him. Despite the writ petitioner had not been served with any copy of the charge, he replied to the show cause notice on 12.09.1999 contending inter alia that the allegations brought against him in the show cause notice  were  not  correct  and  the  detail  particulars  relating  to  the certificates in dispute had not been mentioned therein and as such the show cause notice was issued without any lawful basis.

Later  on,  the  writ  respondent  No.5  by  office  memo No.mvexK/Kwb/cÖ:/99  dated  11.11.1999  appointed  Mr.  Abul  Hossain, Manager  Re-Insurance  (Accounts)  Department  of  Head  Office  as Inquiry  Officer  and  Mr.  Md.  Enamul  Haque,  Deputy  Manager, Administration, Head Office as prosecutor for holding inquiry. The Inquiry Officer by notice dated 28.11.1999 asked the writ petitioner to

appear before the Inquiry Commission on 30.11.1999 at 10.00 am at Khulna Zonal Office to make self-defence by producing evidence and other relevant documents. On 28.11.1999 the Inquiry Officer framed charge  against  the  writ  petitioner  on  the  allegation  of misappropriation of Tk.56,718.19 (fifty six thousand seven hundred eighteen and paisa nineteen only) against issuance of certificate of premium of motor vehicles showing less recovery in the duplicates of the  certificates,  but  no  penalty  was  proposed  as  required  under Sections  41(Ka)  of  Sadharan  Bima  Corporation  Karmachari Probidhanmala,  1992  (shortly  Probidhanmala,  1992).  The  writ petitioner was also not given any opportunity for submitting reply against the charge enabling him 10(ten) days time as envisaged in Sections 41(Ka) of Probidhanmala, 1992. Notwithstanding that the writ petitioner had not been served with the copy of charge as well as the sufficient time for giving reply to the show cause notice, he was constrained to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 30.11.1999, but the  Inquiry  Officer  without  recording  the  statement  of  the  writ petitioner  and  without  examining  the  prosecutor  in  his  presence, obtained  signature  of  the  writ  petitioner  on  2(two)  blank  sheets informing him the conclusion of inquiry proceeding.

Subsequently, on 04.04.2000 the writ respondent No.5 issued memorandum intimating the writ petitioner that having been found him guilty by the Inquiry Officer for misappropriation of Tk.89,528.24 (eighty nine thousand five hundred twenty eight and paisa twenty

four  only)  in  the  inquiry  held  on  30.11.1999,  the  Board  of  the Corporation in its 360th meeting decided to dismiss him from the service and accordingly he was asked to show cause within 10(ten) days. The said decision was also not accompanied with the inquiry report  as  required  under  Sections  41(5)  of  Probidhanmala,  1992. Although the writ petitioner had not received copy of the inquiry report along with the show cause notice, submitted reply to the show cause on 11.04.2000 denying the allegation and claiming that he being a freedom fighter might be exonerated from the charge reinstating him in the service.

In  the  meantime,  an  FIR  has  been  lodged  against  the  writ petitioner with Bheramara Police Station on 19.08.1999 being Case No.12(8)1999 under Sections 409 of the Penal Code regarding same allegation.  After  investigation  police  submitted  charge  sheet  and eventually the case was sent for trial. Having held the trial in Special Case No.29 of 2001 against the writ petitioner, the Court acquitted him from charge framed against him under Sections 420 and 409 of the Penal Code.

On  05.10.2002  he  submitted  joining  report  addressing  the Manager of Sadharan Bima Corporation, Kushtia Branch. Later on, the authority on receipt of his joining report dismissed him from service  by  office  order  No.647  issued  under  memo No.mvexK/cÖkv/cÖKv/2003 dated 05.05.2003.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the said dismissal order and a Rule was issued calling upon the writ respondents  to  show  cause  as  to  why  the  impugned  order  of dismissal  dated  05.05.2003  (Annexure-H)  under  the  signature  of Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Sadharan Bima Corporation should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Thereafter, upon hearing a Division Bench of the High Court Division by judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 made the Rule absolute with direction to the writ respondents to reinstate  the  writ  petitioner  in  the  service  and  to  pay  his  arrear salaries and other benefits.

Being aggrieved, by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the High Court Division the writ respondents No.1-2-the appellants, filed the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.641 of 2010 before this Division. After hearing the parties this Division was pleased to grant leave by order dated 13.03.2014 and hence the instant Civil Appeal.

The  writ  respondents  No.1-2-appellants  contested  the  writ petition contending inter alia that the writ petitioner was put under suspension  on  the  allegation  of  misappropriation  of  Tk.50,000.00 received as premium and he was charged for misappropriation of the corporation  fund,  negligence  of  duty,  corruption,  forgery  and deliberate attempt to tarnish the images of the corporation. The writ petitioner was asked to show cause within 10(ten) days of receipt of

the notice dated 24.08.1999 as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for the above acts of misconduct and he replied to the show cause notice by denying the allegation. As the reply was not found to be satisfactory an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges brought against him. The writ petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and he was given full opportunity to rebut the charges brought against him. However, as he failed to prove his innocence  the  Inquiry  Officer  found  him  guilty  of  the  charges brought  against  him.  Accordingly,  the  authority  decided  to temporarily suspend the writ petitioner-respondent from service. A second  show  cause  notice  was  served  as  per  provisions  of Probidhanmala,  1992  and  upon  compliance  of  all  necessary formalities as the writ petitioner was found guilty of the charges and thus  he  was  dismissed.  An  FIR  was  lodged  on  the  selfsame allegations and accordingly a criminal case was started against the writ petitioner in which he was ultimately acquitted on the ground of benefit  of  doubt.  After  acquittal  from  criminal  charges  the  writ petitioner submitted joining report. As the departmental proceeding is not dependent on the finding of criminal court, the writ petitioner was found guilty of charges in the departmental proceedings and as such he was dismissed and not allowed to join the service. The writ petitioner filed an appeal for reversal of the decision of dismissal for consideration by the Board of Directors. Since as per provision the Board of Directors of Sadharan Bima Corporation had no authority to

dispose of appeal, the said appeal was forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, who disposed the appeal with the finding that the Writ petitioner was lawfully dismissed from service.

Mr. Tofailur Rahman, the learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants has taken us through the judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the High court Division in Writ Petition No.4540 of 2003, the materials on record and submitted that it being a settled  principle  of  law  that  the  departmental  proceeding  is  not dependent  on  the  finding  of  a  criminal  Court,  the  High  Court Division erroneously held that the writ petitioner having not been found guilty after trial of the criminal case on same allegation by a competent criminal Court, the dismissal order passed against the writ petitioner is apparently illegal. The learned Counsel contends next that High Court Division having accepted the fact of negligence in duty on the part of the writ petitioner erroneously held that the writ petitioner cannot be dismissed from service and as such the judgment and  order  of  the  High  Court  Division  cannot  be  sustained.  The learned  Counsel  argues  next  that  the  respondent  No.1  having suppressed the facts of rejection of departmental appeal filed by him in pursuance of the order of the High Court Division and thus it led to  non-consideration  of  material  facts  for  determination  of  the correctness of the dismissal order while making the Rule absolute by the High Court Division and as such the impugned judgment and order cannot sustain in the eye of law. In support of his submissions

the learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in 9 ADC(2012) 418; 34 DLR(AD)(1982) 304; and 1981(2) SLR 274.

On the other hand, , Mr. Md. Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 vehemently  opposes  the  submission  put  forward  by  the  learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned senior Counsel argues that the inquiry proceedings having not been followed by the procedures as laid down in Probidhan 41 of Probidhanmala, 1992, and as such the impugned dismissal order is illegal. He contends next that in initiating the proceeding against the respondent No.1 the first show cause notice having not been accompanied by particular charges with proposed penalty and with the 2nd show cause notice the inquiry proceeding having not been communicated to the petitioner for his reply the whole proceeding has been vitiated for breach of provisions of law as the same caused prejudice to the respondent No.1 and on such a vitiated proceeding the respondent No.1 cannot be dismissed from service.

He contends lastly that regarding the selfsame allegation there being a criminal case prior to the departmental proceeding and the respondent No.1 having found not guilty by the competent criminal Court he ought not to have been dismissed from service on an illegal departmental  proceeding  as  the  same  was  held  in  violation  of statutory provisions and in breach of principles of natural justice and thus the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is

not liable to be interfered with. The learned senior Counsel relied on the decision reported in 5 ALR(AD) 2015(1) 130.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the High Court Division and the materials on record.

The  core  contention  between  the  both  parties  hinges  on  a question whether the provisions of law have been complied with in dismissing  the  writ  petitioner-respondent  No.1  from  service.  To determine the said issue let us examine the provisions of law while imposing  major  punishment  on  an  employee.  Probidhan  41  of

Probidhanmala, 1992 is as follows:

Ò41| ¸iæZi `‡Ûi †ÿ‡Î Z`‡šiÍ Kvhc© ÖYvjx- (1) †h †ÿ‡Î †Kvb Kg©Pvixi weiæ‡× GB cÖweavbgvjvi Aaxb †Kvb Kvh©aviv mPbv Kwi‡Z nq Ges KZ©cÿ AwfgZ †cvlY K‡ib †h, Awf‡hvM cÖgvwYZ nB‡j ¸iæZi `Ûv‡ivc Kiv cÖ‡qvRb nB‡e, †m †ÿ‡Î KZ©cÿ-

11.        Awf‡hvMbvgv  cÖYqb  Kwi‡eb  Ges  †h  mKj  Awf‡hv‡Mi  wfwˇZ Awf‡hvMbvgvwU cYÖ xZ nBqv‡Q Dnvi weeiY Ges KZ©cÿ Av‡`k c`Ö v‡bi mg‡q Ab¨ †h mKj NUbv we‡ePbv Kivi B”Qv †cvlY K‡ib ZvnvI Kg©Pvix‡K AewnZ Kwi‡eb;
12.         Awf‡hvMbvgv cvÖwßi ci Awfh³ e¨w³ `kwU Kvhw©`e‡mi g‡a¨ AvZ¥cÿ mg_©b Kwiqv wjwLZ weewZ †ck Kwi‡eb Ges cÖ¯ÍvweZ `Û †Kb Zvnvi Dci Av‡ivc Kiv nB‡e bv Zrm¤ú‡K© KviY `k©vB‡eb Ges wZwb e¨w³MZfv‡e kbvbxi B”Qv †cvlY K‡ib wKbv ZvnvI D‡jøL Kwi‡eb|

Z‡e kZ© _v‡K †h, wba©vwiZ †gqv` †kl nBevi c‡e© Awfh³ e¨w³ hw` mgq ew×i Rb¨ Av‡e`b K‡ib, Zvnv nB‡j KZ©cÿ Zvnv‡K Zvnvi wjwLZ weewZ †ck Kivi Rb¨ `kwU Kvh© w`em ch©š Í mgq w`‡Z cvwi‡eb|

2.   †h †ÿ‡Î Awfh³ e¨w³ wba©vwiZ ev ewa©Z mg‡qi g‡a¨ AvZ¥cÿ mg_©b Kwiqv weewZ †ck Kwi‡eb, †m †ÿ‡Î  KZ©cÿ Awf‡hvM msµvšÍ Ab¨vb¨ welqvw`i mvÿ¨ cÖgvYmn

Zvnvi weewZ we‡ePbv Kwi‡eb Ges Abiƒc we‡ePbvi ci KZ©cÿ hw` AwfgZ †cvlY K‡ib †h,-

(K) Awfh³ e¨w³i weiæ‡× mwPZ Kvh©avivwU AMÖmi nBevi ch©vß KviY bvB Zvnv nB‡j D³ Awf‡hvM cZÖ ¨vnvi Kwi‡eb Ges Z`vbmv‡i D³ Kvha© viv wb®úwË nB‡e| (খ) অিভয  ব     র িব ে  সিচত কাযধ ারা ট  AMÖmi nBevi chv©ß KviY আেছ এবং অিভেযাগ মািণত  হইেল  jN  দ    দােনর েয়াজন  হইেব  তাহা  হইেল  অিভয  ব     েক ব     গতভােব নািনর সেযাগ দান কিরয়া য  কােনা এক ট jN দ   দান কিরেত পািরেবন অথবা jN দ  আেরােপর উে েশ   িবধান ৪০এর অধীন একজন তদ  কমকতা িনেয়াগ কিরয়া উ  cÖweav‡b বিণত  কায   ণালী অনসরণ কিরেত পািরেবন;

(M) D³ Kvha© vivq অিভয  ব     র উপর ¸iæ `Û আেরােপর জন  পযা  কারণ আেছ তাহা  হইেল  অিভেযাগ  তদে র  জন   অিভয   ব     র  পদমযাদার  wb‡¤œ b‡n Ggb GKRb Z`š Í Kg©KZ©v ev ‡ÿÎ we‡k‡l Z`šÍ †evW© wb‡qvM Kwi‡eb|  

3.      য    ে  অিভয  ব      িনধাি রত ev বিধত  সমেয়র মেধ  আ প  সমথন  কিরqv †Kvb wjwLZ weewZ †ck bv K‡ib †m‡ÿ‡Î কতপ  অিভয  ব     i পদমযাদাi িনে  নয় এমন একজন তদ  কমকতা wb‡qvM Kwi‡eb বা      িবেশেষ তদ  ‡evW© গঠন কিরেবb|
4.      তদ কারী কমকতা ev       িবেশেষ তদ  ‡evW© Z`‡šÍi আেদশ cÖvwßi তািরখ হইেত সাত ট Kvh© িদবেসর মেধ  তদে র কাজ     Kwi‡eb এবং িবধান  42  এ বিণত  প িত অনসাের তদ  পিরচালনা কিরেবন এবং কতপে র িনকট তদ   িতেবদন পশ কিরেবন |
5.      তদ কারী কমকতা ev তদ  ‡ev‡W©i Z`šÍ িতেবদন াি র পর কতপ   িতেবদন ট িবেবচনা কিরেবন এবং উ  অিভেযােগর Dci কতপে র িস া  wjwce× কিরেবন এবং অিভয  ব     েক উ   িতেবদেনi Kwcmn িস া   ট জানাইেবন|
6.      KZ©cÿ hw` Dc-cÖweavb (5) †gvZv‡eK ¸iæ `Û Av‡iv‡ci wm×všÍ MÖnY K‡ib Zvnv nB‡j c¯Ö ÍvweZ `Û Awfh³ e¨w³i cÖwZ †Kb Av‡ivc Kiv nB‡e bv Zrস েক mvZwU কাযিদবেসর মেধ  তাহােক কারণ `kv©Bevi িনেদশ িদেবন|
7.      KZ©cÿ D³ Kvha© vivi Dci PovšÍ িস া  MÖnY কিরেবন এবং অিভয  ব     েক Dnv অবিহত কিরেবন |
8.      এই cÖweav‡bi Aaxb Z`šÍ Kvh©avivq chv©ß সা      মাণ wjwce× _vwK‡Z nB‡e Ges †h †ÿ‡Î Z`š Í KgK© Z©v ev Z`šÍ †evW© wbh³ Kiv nq, †m †ÿ‡Î D³ Kg©KZ©v ev †ev‡W©i Z`†šÍi cÖwZ‡e`b ev cÖwZ‡e`‡bi mg_©‡b hw³msMZ KviY _vwK‡Z nB‡e|

10.       GBiƒc mKj Z`šÍ Kvha© viv †Mvcbxq ewjqv MY¨ nB‡e|Ó

(underlines supplied)

What appears from the above is that if the authority thinks to impose major penalty on a delinquent employee then the authority at

first shall frame charge under Sub-Probidhan (1)(Ka) of Probidhan 41 of Probidhanmala, 1992 against the delinquent employee stating the allegations and the facts or information on the basis of which such allegations were brought and the copy of charge as well as other documents shall be supplied to the delinquent employee. But from Annexure-A(1) to the writ petition it transpires that the authority temporarily dismissed the writ petitioner on 21.07.1999 while from Annexure-B to the writ petition the show cause notice appears to have been issued to the writ petitioner on 24.08.1999. On the other hand, Annexure-F shows that the charge has been framed against the writ petitioner on 28.11.1999. It is palpably transparent from record of the case in hand that in taking action against the writ petitioner- respondent  No.1 inflicting  major  punishment  the  authority  issued show cause notice to him on 24.08.1999, but charge was framed on 28.11.1999,  which  is  in  clear  violation  of  Probidhan  41  of Probidhanmala, 1992 which vitiates the entire enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner. It also divulges from the record that the writ petitioner has also not been supplied with the copy of charge.

Probidhan  42  of  Probidhanmala,  1992  lays  down  in  the following-

Ò42| Z`šÍ Kg©KZ©v KZ©K Abmibxq Kvhc© ÖYvjx-(1) Z`šÍ Kg©KZ©v gvgjvi ïbvbx ïiæi w`b nB‡Z †kl bv nIqv ch©šÍ cwÖZw`b ïbvbx Abôvb Kwi‡eb Ges KviY wjwce× bv Kwiqv D³ ïbvbx gjZex ivLv hvB‡e bv| (2) Z`šÍKvix Kg©KZ©v KZ©K cwiPvwjZ Z`šÍÑ

11.   Awfh³ e¨w³ ‡hB mKj Awf‡hvM A¯^xKvi K‡ib †mB mKj Awf‡hvM A¯^xKvi K‡ib †mB mKj Awf‡hvM m¤ú‡K© †gŠwLK mvÿ¨ MnÖ Y I wjwce× Kiv nB‡e Ges Awf‡hvM m¤úwK©Z cvÖmswMK ev ¸iæZ¡cY© `vwjwjK mvÿ¨ we‡ewPZ nB‡e|
12.    Awfh³ e¨w³ cÖwZc‡ÿi mvÿxMY‡K †Riv Kivi, e¨w³MZfv‡e mvÿ¨ cÖ`vb Kiv Ges Zvnvi cÿ mg_©bKvix †Kvb e¨w³‡K mvÿx wnmv‡e Zje Kivi AwaKvix nB‡eb|
13.    Awf‡hv‡Mi  mg_©‡b  gvgjv  Dc¯’vcbKvix  e¨w³  Awfh³  e¨w³‡K  Ges  Zvnvi mvÿxMY‡K †Riv Kivi AwaKvix nB‡eb|
14.    Awfh³ e¨w³ cÖvmswMK bw_ c‡Îi Rb¨ Ab‡iva Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb Z‡e Zvnv‡K bw_ †UvKvi Ask †Kvb cÖKv‡iB †`wL‡Z †`Iqv nB‡e bv |Ó

(underlines supplied)

From the inquiry report (Annexure-L(1)) it is seen that no oral evidence was recorded by the Inquiry Officer to prove the allegations brought against the respondent No.1, eventually no question of cross- examination  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  by  the  writ  petitioner- respondent No.1 has arisen at all. Thus, the inquiry proceeding in the case in hand has not been held in compliance with the provisions laid down  in  Probidhan  42  of  Probidhanmala,  1992.  In  the  aforesaid backdrop  the  impugned  dismissal  order  of  the  respondent  No.1 backed by flawed departmental proceeding cannot be sustainable in the eye of law.

In  view  of  the  proposition  of  law  and  the  discussion made above, we find that the High Court Division did not commit any error of law and facts in making the Rule absolute in Writ Petition No.4540 of 2003 by the judgment and order dated 26.10.2009 which does not call for intervention by this Division.

In the light of the observations made above, we do not find merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

Accordingly, this Civil Appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.

C.J.

J.

J.

The 24th day of August, 2022  

RRO; Total words: 3101