IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

                 (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder

And

       Mr. Justice Khizir Hayat

Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: Md. Syeduzzaman

......... Petitioner.               -Versus-

Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.

........... Respondents.

Mr. A. K. M. Shamsuddin Ahmed, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Oliar Rahman, Advocate and

Mrs. Shayema Chowdhury, Advocate

    ....... For the Petitioner. Mr. A K M Amin Uddin, D.A.G with

Ms. Anna Khanom Koli, A.A.G and

Mr. Md. Shaifour Rahman Siddique, A.A.G

             ...... For the Respondents.            Mr. Md. Omar Farook, Advocate,

&For the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Heard on: 27.10.2022 and 03.11.2022,   

judgment on: 03.11.2022

Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder, J:

On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People9s Republic of Bangladesh, this Rule Nisi, at the instance of the petitioner, was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned notice vide Memo No. 00.01.6800.613.005.18-371 dated 27.02.2019 signed

and issued by the Respondent No.5, Deputy Director, Durnity Daman Commission, coordinated district office, Dhaka-2, Dhaka  (Annexure-E) asking the petitioner to submit wealth statement standing in the name of the petitioner and his dependents within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the notice, should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

 It may be noted that at the time of issuance of the Rule, the operation of the impugned Memo No.00.01.6800.613.1.005.18-371 dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure-E) issued by the Respondent No.5 asking the petitioner to submit wealth statement standing in the name of petitioner and his dependents within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of the notice, was stayed for the time being.

   The facts leading to issuance of the Rule run as follows:-

It is stated in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is a law abiding citizen of Bangladesh. He has come of a respectable Muslim family; the petitioner was appointed as the Sub-Inspector of police on 20.12.1992 and ultimately he was promoted as the Inspector of Police on 10.02.2007 and since then he has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and dignity and lastly he performed his duties as the officer-in-charge of Madhabdi Police Station of Narsingdi District. At present, he has been serving in the Special Branch (SB), Malibagh, Head Office, Dhaka. Throughout his service life, the authority could not put any stigma in his whole service carrier and for his courageous role in his service, from time to time, he was awarded 75 G S mark and he acquired the prize and honour of the best Officer-in-Charge several times from 2007-2022 and during his service time, he was sent for a official training to Gujrat in India. He also performed the Holy Ummrah Hajj being accompanied by his wife in the year of 2017; during his service, the Respondent No.7 issued a notice upon the petitioner on 28.01.2018 vide Memo No. 04.01.2600.613. 01.005.18.154 to submit his wealth statement under section 19 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 read with Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 and section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; in response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner appeared in the office of the Respondent No.7 and submitted wealth statement and produced all the relevant documents including the assessments of the income tax returns given in the income tax office; upon accepting the relevant documents and hearing the petitioner, the Respondent No.7 being convinced submitted inquiry report in details with a recommendation to exonerate the petitioner from the allegation brought against him and

submitted the inquiry report to the Respondent No. 4, Director of Durnity Daman Commission on 25.06.2018, which is evident from (Annexure-B) to the writ petition; thereafter Respondent No.6, Deputy Director of Durnity Damon Commission upon perusal and examination of papers and documents found the inquiry report of the Respondent No.7 correct and submitted the inquiry report to the Director, Durnity Daman Commission, Respondent No.4 vide letter dated  27.06.2018 under Memo No.  ¿¹ © 04.01.2600613.01.005.18.1440, which is evident from Annexure-C; thereafter, another Director, Durnity Daman Commission upon perusal and examination of the papers and documents found the reports of Respondent Nos. 7 and 6 correct and submitted inquiry report to the office of the Respondent No.3, which is evident from  Annexure-D; after following the aforesaid procedures, the matter of inquiry came to an end in favour of the petitioner but all of a sudden,

the Respondent No.4 issued another notice upon the petitioner vide Memo No. 04.01.000.503.26. 662.171222 dated 27.02.2019 for submitting the wealth statement afresh, which is bolt from the blue to the petitioner and the same is evident from (Annexure-E) to the writ petition.

Being aggrieved by the impugned notice (Annexure-E) to the writ petition, the petitioner approached this court with an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the Peoples9 Republic of Bangladesh and obtained this Rule Nisi along with an order of stay of the impugned notice.

At the very outset, Mr. A. K. M. Shamsuddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate with Mr. Md. Oliar Rahman, the learned Advocate and Mrs. Shayema Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submits that the office of the respondents issued the impugned notice vide Memo No. 00.01.6800.613.005.18-371 dated 27.02.2019 upon the petitioner at the instance of the vested quarters only for unnecessary harassment, since the instant petitioner being a regular income tax payer has submitted all the information of his movable and immovable properties and the same has been accepted by the Income Tax authorities and the Anti-Corruption Commission without any objection from any quarters and as such, the impugned notice has no legal basis and as such, the same is liable to be declared to have been issued without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

He next submits that the petitioner is an honest police officer and he has reputation and clean image in his department for which he was promoted and awarded from time to time and the petitioner suppressed nothing in the previous wealth statement submitted before the Anti-Corruption Commission and accordingly his statement was accepted by the office of the respondents unanimously upon perusal and examinations of the relevant papers and documents and as such, the impugned notice has been issued with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioner and to tarnish his image in the society and as such, the same is liable to be declared to have been issued without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

He lastly submits that since the petitioner did not suppress anything in his previous information and since the office of the respondents was satisfied with the documents of the petitioners and since the petitioner was exonerated from all the allegations and as such, the issuance of the impugned notice has no legal basis and the same is liable to be declared to have been issued without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

On the other hand, Mr. Md. Omar Farook, the learned Advocate appearing for the Anti-Corruption Commission, has submitted affidavit-in-opposition and controverted all the submissions and grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and categorically submits that the Anti-Corruption Commission has statutory right under sections 17/19 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 read with Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 and section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to inquire into any allegation brought against the petitioner and that proceeding of inquiry is a fact finding process of the Anti-Corruption Commission which cannot be prevented by the petitioner by filing this writ petition before this Court and thus the writ petitioner has no legal right to file this writ petition since the writ petition is not maintainable in the eye of law.

He next submits that the concerned officers of the Anti-Corruption Commission conducted an inquiry into the allegation brought against the petitioner and after holding inquiry, they did not find any prima facie case against the petitioner but the same does not mean that the prima facie case would not be found truthful subsequently because the inquiry report has not been accepted by Commission as yet and under the circumstances, there is no bar to issuing any fresh notice to hold inquiry into the allegation brought against the petitioner.

Mr. A. K. M Amin uddin, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing for the other respondents, submits that the Anti-Corruption Commission held inquiry into the allegations brought against the petitioner but the inquiry officers did not find any prima facie case against the petitioner and that it is not found by the inquiry officers that the petitioner obtained the property which is disproportionate to his known sources of income.

He next submits that the petitioner obtained Police Force exemplary Good Service badge-2020 from the Inspector General of Police, Bangladesh which is evident from Annexure-G-6 to the supplementary affidavit.

He lastly submits that a person cannot be harassed and humiliated repeatedly unless there is a bona fide reason to proceed against him and as such, the Court may pass necessary judgment and order in accordance with law which is required for ends of justice.

We have gone through the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People9s Republic of Bangladesh. We have also perused and examined the materials annexed with the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition. We have also heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and considered their submissions with the best of our wit, wisdom and intelligence.

It is evident from the record that Respondent No.7 issued a notice upon the petitioner under sections 17/19 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

read with Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission

Rules, 2007 and section 160 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for submitting wealth statement standing in

the name of the petitioner and his dependants.

Following the same, the petitioner submitted

wealth statement along with the income tax returns to

the concerned office of the Respondent No.7.

Upon accepting the same and on perusing the

papers and documents, the Respondent No.7 submitted

inquiry report holding the view, inter alia, that the

allegation as brought against the petitioner are not

found satisfactory and true and accordingly, he

recommended to terminate the inquiry proceedings

started against the petitioner. The relevant portion of

the opinion of the inquiry runs as follows:

ÒAwfhy³ Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb Kwgk!b Dcw¯9Z n!q wjwLZ e³e¨ cÖ`vb K!i!Qb Ges Awf!hvM mswkøó iKW©cÎ mieivn K!i!Qb| AbymÜvbKv!j pwNªq£a iKW©cÎ ch©v!jvPbv Ges Awf!hvM mswkøó e¨w³e!M©i e³e¨ ch©v!jvPbvq `Lv hvq h, wZwb wW!m¤^i/1992

wLª: Zvwi!L evsjv!`k cywjk evwnbx!Z mve-BÝ!c±i c!` hvM`vb K!i

2007  mv!j  cywjk  cwi`k©K  c!`  c!`vbSwZ  cvb|  eZ©gv!b  cywjk cwi`k©K wn!m!e biwms`x g!Wj _vbvq Kg©iZ Av!Qb| Kj m:Uv!ii gva¨!g D³ Awf!hvMwU cÖvß nq| PvKzix!Z hvM`v!bi ci K&wo Avev`

ev!` Ab¨vb¨ e¨emv ¯^vfvweK Kvi!YB eÜ K!i `b| 1996 mv!j wcZv

giûg Avãyj Iqv!n` wgbv Ges 2008 mv!j gvZ¡ gvmvÇjc jvjRvb

 bmvi  B!aÍKvj  Kivi  ci  DËivwaKvi  J  fvB!`i  g!a¨  Av!cvl-

e:Ubbvgv  g~!j  3wU  cyKzimn  4.44  GKi  K&wl  Rwg  cÖvß  nb| AbymÜvbKv!j `Lv hvq h, PvKzixi c~!e© _!KB wZwb wcZv  IfvB!`i

mv!_ K&wl Rwg Avev`mn gamygx dmj h_v- cqvR, imyb, Av v, ` avb,

Wvj, cvU, Av!Li ¸!oi e¨emv Ges dwi`cyi KvbvBcyi RyU wgj, Lyjbvi RyU ¢jmpq wewfbS RyU wg!j cvU mieiv!ni e¨emv Ki!Zb z PvKzwi!Z hvM`v!bi ci K&wl Avev`, evox!Z Miæi Lvgv!ic i ÖwZcvjb,

cyKzi Lb!bi gva¨!g gv!Qi Pvl ev!` Ab¨vb¨ e¨emv eÜ K!i `b| GB

mg¯Í e¨emv _!K Zvi evrmwiK Avq   c¡sy¡u 12,00,000/- UvKv|

wZwb Zvi wjwLZ e³!e¨ e!jb h, PvKzixi c~!e© _!KB 191-9  2mvj

 _!K wbqwgZ fv!e wiUvY© Rgv w`!q Avm!Qb| `xN© w`!bi µq-we! µqi mg¯Í iwk` wZwb msMÖ!n ivL!Z cv!ibwb| Zvi MÖv!gi evox cwi9vi ® cwi=QbSZvi mg!q `xN©w`!bi bw_cÎ, µq-weµq iwk`mn Avbywm½xK AviI Ab¨vb¨ KvMRcÎ bó n!q hvq| wZwb Kwgkb eivei wiUvb© ` wLj

K!ib 2008-09 Ll-hoÑ _!K| D³ Kie!l©l c~e©eZx© wiUvb© Kwc pwNË2q bB j2jÑ wZwb 08/04/2018 wLª: ZvwiL Ges 21/05/2018

wLª:  Zvwi!Li  Dc  Ki  Kwgkbvi,  Ki  AÂj-14  eivei  Zvi  wiUvb© D!Ëvj!bi  GKwU  Av!e`!bi  Kwc  Kwgkb  eivei  `vwLj  K!ib| Awf!hvM mswkøó hÉ¢a² gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb KZ&©K `vwLjK&Z 2008-2009 Kie!l©i AvqKi bw_ ch©v!jvPbvq `Lv hvq, 2007-2008 Kie!l©

 gvU AwR©Z cwim¤ú!`i cwigvb wQj 1,75,89,500/- UvKv Ges 2008-2009 A_© eQ!ii gvU cwim¤ú!`i cwigvb 1,76,51,00 7/-|

D³ 1,75,89,500/- UvKvi cwim¤ú` AR©!bi mg_©!b wZwb 19  98

mvj, 1999 mvj, 2001 mvj, 2002 mv!ji cY¨ weµ!qi wewfbS iwk`

mieivn K!ib| AvqKi bw_ ch©v!jvPbvq `Lv hvq h, eZb Ges K&wl

e¨emv ( gamygx K&wl cY¨ h_v cvU, wcqvR, imyb, avb, gywi m Wvj I

Ab¨vb¨  gamygx K&wl cb¨ gRy``vix , grm Pvl , Miæ weµq  )_!K cÖvß

Av!qi Drm AvqKi wefvM KZ©>K M>nxZ n!q!Q| me©!k- l2 0 21 08 1  7 Kie!l© Zvi gvU cwim¤ú!`i cwigvb `vovq 1,91,35,580/- ( GK

 KvwU GKvbeyB jÿ cqwÎk nvRvi cvuPkZ Avwk) UvKv| AvqKi wiUvb©

ch©v!jvPbvq `Lv hvq h, `k eQ!i ( 2008 n!Z 2018) Zvi

cwim¤ú` e>w×i cwigvb  5,14,099/- UvKv hv Zvi K&wl Avq, e¨vsK/mÂq c!Îi my` Ges eZb _!K cÖvß Av!qi ms!M msMwZc~b©| AbymÜvbKv!j Awf!hv!M ewY©Z 04 wU wel!qi g!a¨ Zvi I Zvi ¯¿xi bv!g ha_fv!e 26.10.2017 Bs Zvwi!L eo gMevRvi, XvKvi cøU bs

98/5 G 61,44,000/- UvKv g~!j¨i µqK&Z 1776 eM©dz!UK iwU  G

d¬¨vU Ges 1999 mv!j gvZv giûg gvmv¤§` jvjRvb bmvi wbKU

 _!K `vb g~!j cÖvß mvfv!i 10 kZK Rwg Qvov Ab¨ Kvb a! ibi

m¤ú!`i Z_¨ cvIqv hvqwb| GQvovI Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb Gi hveZxq m¤úwËi Dr!mi mÜv!bi wewfbS Awd!m AwahvPb cÎ cÖiY Kiv

nq| D³ `ßi¸!jv n!Z cÖvß Zjøvkx cÖwZ!e`!b Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb Gi bv!g Kvb ai!bi m¤ú` AR©!bi Z_¨ cvIqh vv qwb|

Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb Gi we!`k ågb msµvaÍ welq AbymÜv!bi `Lv hvq wZwb miKvix U&ªwbs G fvi!Z ¸Riv!U cÖwkÿb MÖnY K!ib Ges m¯¿xK 2017 mv!j Igivn n¾ cvjb K!ib| Zvi MZ

25 eQ!ii PvKzix Rxe!b AZ¨aÍ mZZv, wbôv I mybv!gi mv!_ `vwqZ¡ I

KZ©e¨ cvjb Kivq wZwb 75 wU wR Gm gvK© AR©b K!i!Qb| biwms`x

 Rjvi GKRb mykvmK wn!m!e wZwb G eQi biwms`x Rjvi kªô Awdmvi Bb PvR© wn!m!e m¤§vbbv ¯§viK cÖvß nb|

GgZve¯9vq AbymÜvbKv!j msM>nxZ iKW©cÎ ch©v!jvPbvc~e©K Awf!hvM mswkøó e¨w³ Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾gvb, Awdmvi-Bb-PvR ©, wkecyi _vbv (eZ©gv!b biwms`x g!Wj _vbv), biwms`x| eZ©gvb wVKvbv:

evmv bs 98 (ivRkvnx nvDm), d¬vU bs bs G/2, eo gMevRvi (

KvRxi Mwji mvg!b) XvKv Gi weiæ!× A0eafv!e m¤ú` AR©!b i Awf!hvMwU cÖwZwôZ bv nIqvq bw_fzw³i mycvwik K!i cÖwZ!e`b `vwLj Kiv nj| Ó

The aforesaid report was also cross-checked by

the Respondent No.6 and thereafter, submitted report

with recommendation to terminate the inquiry

proceeding against the petitioner. The opinion of the

Respondent No.6 runs as under:

<c¡¢MmL«a fТa2hce fkÑ¡2m¡Qe¡u ®cM¡ k¡u, A£i2k¡N pw¢nÔø hÉ¢a² ®j¡: ¯puc¤9¡j¡e, A¢gp¡l-Ce-Q¡SÑ, ¢nhf¤l b¡e¡ (haÑj¡2e

el¢pwc£ j2Xm b¡e¡) 1992 p2el ¢X2pðl j¡2p h¡wm¡2cn f¤¢mn

h¡¢qe£l p¡h-C¾p2f“l f2c ®k¡Nc¡e L2le Hhw 2007 p¡2m f¤¢mn

f¢lcnÑL f2c f2c¡æ¢a m¡i L2lez Ae¤på¡eL¡2m ®cM¡ k¡u ®k, Q¡L¥l£l f§2hÑ ®b2LC ¢a¢e ¢fa¡ J i¡C2cl p¡2b L«¢o S¢j Bh¡cpq ®j±p¤j£ gpm kb¡-®fu¡yS, lp¤e, Bc¡, d¡e, X¡m, f¡V, B2Ml &2sl

hÉhp¡ Hhw g¢lcf¤l L¡e¡Cf¤l S¤V ¢jm, M¤me¡l S¤V ¢jmpq ¢h¢iæ S¤e ¢j2m f¡V plhl¡2ql hÉhp¡ Ll2aez Q¡L¥¢l2a ®k¡Nc¡2e fl L«¢o Bh¡c, h¡s£2a Nl¦l M¡j¡2ll fТaf¡me, f¤L¥l Me2el j¡dÉ2j j¡2Rl

Q¡o h¡2c AeÉ¡eÉ hÉhp¡ hå L2l 2cez HC pjÙ¹ hÉhp¡ ®b2L a¡l h¡vp¢lL Bu c¡s¡yu 12,00,000/- V¡L¡z a¡l ¢fa¡ jlýj Bë¥m

Ju¡2qc ¢je¡ Hhw j¡a¡ ®j¡p¡Çjc m¡mS¡e ®ep¡l jªa¥Él fl i¡C2cl

j2dÉ B2f¡o h¾V2el j¡dÉ2j Eal¡¢dL¡l p§2S 3¢V f¤L¥lpq 4.44

HLl L«¢o S¢j fСç qez Ae¤på¡eL¡2m ¢a¢e a¡l ¢m¢Ma ha²2hÉ h2me ®k, ¢a¢e 1991-92 p¡m ®b2L ¢eu¢jai¡2h BuLl ¢lV¡ZÑ c¡¢Mm L2l Bp2Rez ¢L¿º 2008-2009 AbÑ hR2ll f§2hÑl BuLl e¢b c¡¢Mm Ll2a  f¡2le¢ez  a¡l  NË¡2jl  h¡s£  f¢l×L¡l  f¢lµRæa¡l  pj2k c£OÑ

¢c2el e¢bfS, S²u-¢hS²u l¢ncpq Be¤p0£L BlJ AeÉ¡eÉ L¡NSfS

eø q2u k¡u z A¢i2k¡N pw¢nÔø hÉ¢a² ®j¡: ¯puc¤9¡j¡e Hl BuLl

e¢b plhl¡2ql SeÉ pw¢nÔø BuLl A¢g2p ®k¡N¡2k¡N Ll¡ q2m Hm¡L¡ ¢i¢a²L Ll A9m ¢hia² qJu¡u a¡ pwlrZ e¡ b¡L¡u Q¡¢qa abÉ fÐc¡e

Ll2a f¡2le¢e z A¢i2k¡N pw¢nÔø hÉ¢a² ®j¡: ¯puc¤9¡j¡e La«ÑL

c¡¢MmL«a 2008-2009 Llh2oÑl BuLl e¢b fkÑ¡2m¡Qe¡u ®cM¡ k¡u, 2007-2008 Llh2oÑ ®j¡V A¢SÑa f¢lpÇf2cl f¢lj¡Z ¢Rm 1,75,89,500/- V¡L¡ Hhw 2008-2009 AbÑ hR2ll ®j¡V f¢lpÇf2cl f¢lj¡e 1,76,51,070/-z Ea² 1,75,89,500/- V¡Ll

f¢lpÇfc ASÑ2el pjÑb2e ¢a¢e 1998 p¡m, 1999 p¡m, 2001 p¡m, 2002 p¡2ml fZÉ ¢hS²2ul ¢h¢iæ l¢nc plhl¡q L2lez BuLl e¢b fkÑ¡2m¡Qe¡u ®cM¡ k¡u ®k, ®hae Hhw L«¢o hÉhp¡ ®b2L fСç B2ul Evp BuLl ¢hi¡N La«ÑL Nªq£a q2u2Rz phÑ2no 2017-2018 Llh2oÑ ®j¡: ¯puc¤9¡j¡e ®j¡V f¢lpÇf2cl f¢lj¡Z 1,91,35,580/- V¡L¡z AbÑ¡v 2008 q2a 2018 Ll hRl fkÑ¿¹ a¡l pÇf2cl f¢lhª¢Ül f¢lj¡e 5,14,099/- V¡L¡z Se¡h ®j¡: ¯puc¤9¡j¡e ®j¡V f¢lpÇfc 1,91,35,580/- V¡L¡l j2dÉ CEe¡C2VX LjÑ¡¢nu¡m hÉ¡wL, p¡¯al h¡S¡l, ®h¡u¡mj¡l£, g¢lcf¤l 25,00,000/- V¡L¡l Hg¢XBl; BCHgBC¢p hÉ¡wL, n¡¢¿¹eNl n¡M¡u, 9,00,000/- V¡L¡l Hg¢XBl; ®p¡e¡m£ hÉ¡wL, lje¡ n¡M¡u 30,00,000/- V¡L¡l p9ufS B2Rz Ea²

pÇfc ASÑ2el B2ul Evp ¢q2p2h a¡l f§2hÑl A¢SÑa pÇfc, Q¡L¥¢ll Bu, L«¢o Bu, Nl¦l M¡j¡2ll Bu, f¤L¥2ll j¡R Q¡2ol j¡dÉ2j B2ul

¢ho2u p¢WLa¡ f¡Ju¡ k¡u j2jÑ fТa2hce E2õM l2u2Rz

<Awf!hvM mswkøó Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb Zvi PvKzixKvjxb mg!q MZ 26/10/2017 Bs ZvwiL eo gMevRvi XvKvq cøU bs 98/5

G!Z Zvi I Zvi ¯¿xi ha_ bv!g eª¨vK e¨vsK, cÖavb Kvh©©vjq, XvKv n!Z

50,00,000/- UvKv FY MÖn!bi gva¨!g 61,44,000/- UvKvq 1776

eM©dz!Ui GKwU d¬¨vU µq K!i!Qb| Aewkó UvKv (61,44,500- 50,00,000)= 11,44,500/- UvKv Zvi GdwWAvi I mÂq c!Îi my`

 _!K cÖvß UvKv n!Z cwi!kva K!i!Qb| AbymÜvbKv!j Awf!hv!M ewY©Z 04 wU wel!qi g!a¨ Zvi I Zvi ¯¿xi bv!g ha_fv!e µqK&Z d¬¨vU

Ges 1999 mv!j gvZv giûg gvmv¤§` jvjRvb bmvi wbKU _!K `vb

g~!j cÖvß mvfv!i 10 kZK Rwg Qvov Ab¨ Kvb ai!bi m¤ú!i ` Z_¨

cvIqv hvqwb| Awf!hvM mswkøó e¨w³ Rbve Æmq`y¾vgvb miKvixfv!e fvi!Zi ¸Riv!U cÖwkÿY MÖnb K!i!Qb| wZwb mZZv, wbôv I mybv!gi

mv!_ `vwqZ¡ I KZ©e¨ cvjb Kivq biwms`x Rjvi kªô Awdmvi Bb

PvR© wn!m!e m¤§vbbv ¯§viK jvf K!i!Qb| AbymÜvbKv!j Awf!hvM mswkøó e¨w³ Rbve 0mq`y¾vgvb, Awdmvi-Bb-PvR©, wkecyi _vbv (eZ©gv!b biwms`x m`i) KZ©>K ÁvZ Avq ewnf©yZ m¤ú` AR©!bi Awf!hvM mZ¨ bq g!g© cÖZxqgvb nIqvq AbymÜvbKvix Kg©KZ©v Awf!hvMwU cwimgvwßi mycvwik K!i cÖwZ!e`b `vwLj K!i!Qb|

GgZve¯9vq, AbymÜvbKvixi Kg©KZ©vi cÖ¯Ív!ei mv!_ GKgZ

 cvlb K!i Awf!hvMwU cwimgvwßi mycvwik mn cÖwZ!e`b GZ`ms!M

 cÖiY Kiv n!jv| =

Thereafter, another director, Durnity Daman

Commission also cross-checked the inquiry reports

submitted by the inquiry officers and submitted report

holding the view that there is no reason to proceed

against the petitioner since allegation against the

petitioner has not been proved in the inquiry. The

observation and opinion of the director of the Durnity

Daman Commission as contained in Annexure-D to

the Writ Petition runs as follows:

<Dc!iv³ wel!q m~!Îv¯9 ÔKÕ ¯§vi!Ki cÖwÿ!Z DwjøwLZ Awf!hv!Mi AbymÜvbKvix Kg©KZ©v L:`vKvi wbjydv Rvnvb, DcmnKvix cwiPvjK Gi `vwLjK&Z AbymÜvb cÖwZ!e`b m~!Îv¯9 ÔLÕ ¯§vi!big va¨!g

 cÖiY Kiv n!q!Q| cÖvß cÖwZ!e`b GZ`ms!M cÖiY Kiv nj|

cÖvß cÖwZ!e`b ch©v!jvPbvq `Lv hvq h, 2007-08 Kiel©             Abyhvqx Awf!hvM mswkøó Rbve gv: Æmq`y¾vgvb Gi AwR©Z cwim¤ú!`i cwigvb 1,75,89,500/- Ges 2008-09 Gi cwim¤ú` 1,76,51,070/-UvKv| D³ 1,75,89,500/- UvKvi cwim¤ú`

AR©!bi mg_©!b wZwb wewfbS mg!q cY¨ weµ!qi wewfbS iKW© mn i eiv K!ib Ges AvqKi wefvM KZ©>K M>nxZ n!q!Q e!j AbymÜix v bKv Kg©KZ©v Zvi `vwLjK&Z cÖwZ!e`!b D!jøL K!i!Qb| 2017-18 Kil e© ch©aÍ Zvi cwim¤ú` gvU 1,91,35,580/- UvKv| A_©vr 2008 n!Z

2018 Kiel© ch©aÍ m¤ú!`i cwie>w× 5,14,099/- UvKv | wZwb 1,91,35,580/- UvKvi g!a¨ BDbvB!UW Kgvwk©qvj e¨vsK, mv0Zi

evRvi, evqvjgvix, dwi`cyi 25 (cuwPk) jÿ UvKvi GdwWAvi, AvBGdAvBwm e¨vsK, kvwaÍbMi kvLvi XvKvq 9 (bq) jÿ UvKv,

 mvbvjx e¨vsK, igbv kvLv, XvKvq 30 (wÎk) jÿ UvKvi mÂq cÎ

i!q!Q| D³ A_© wZwb wewfbS Drm n!Z Avq K!ib| hv AbymÜvb Kv!j mwVKZv cvIqv hvq e!jI AbymÜvbKvix Kg©KZ©v Zvi `vwLjK&Z cÖwZ!e`!b D!jøL K!i!Qb| GQvov wZwb PvKzixKvjxb XvKvi eo gMevRv!i 50,00,000/- UvKv FY MÖn!bi gva¨!g 61,44,000/-

UvKvq 1776 eM©dz!Ui GKwU d¬vU µq K!i!Qb| Aewkó (61,44,000-50,00,000)= 11,44,500/- UvKv Zvi GdwWAvi I

mÂq c!Îi my` n!Z cwi!kva K!i!Qb| ZvQvov gvZvi wbKU n!Z `vb

m~!Î mvfv!i 10 kZK Rwg Qvov Zvi I Zvi ¯¿xi bv!g Avi K vb

m¤ú!`i  Z_¨  cvIqv  hvqwb|  Awf!hvM  mswkøó  e¨w³i  cÖvß  Z_¨ Dcv!Ë!i Av!jvKcvZ K!i AbymÜvbKvix Kg©KZ©v AvbxZ Awf!hvMwU cwimgvwßi mycvwik K!i!Qb| Dc-cwiPvjK, `ybx©wZ `gb Kwgkb, mgwa^Z Rjv Kvh©vjq, XvKv-2 D³ mycvwi!ki mv!_ GKgZ cb vl K!i!Qb|

GgZve¯9vq,  AbymÜvbKvix  Kg©KZ©v  Ges  Dc-cwiPvjK  Gi mycvwi!ki mv!_ GKgZ cvlbc~e©K Av!jvP¨ Awf!hvMwU cwimgvwßi wbwg!Ë Kwgk!bi m`q Aby!gv`b cÖ`v!bi cÖ!qvRbxq e¨e¯9v b Mi Ön  !Rb¨ mwebq Aby!iva Kiv nj= |

It is true that Anti-Corruption Commission has

the  right  and  authority  to  hold  inquiry  into  the

allegation  as  per  sections  17  and  19  of  the  Anti-

Corruption Commission Act, 2004 read with Rule 20

of Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007. It may

be  noted  that  before  holding  any  inquiry  into  any

allegation, there is a provision of sorting out the said

allegation by the hvPvB-evQvB KwgwU as per Rule 3 of the

Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 so that no

innocent person is harassed and humiliated in any

case. From the prosecution materials, the learned

Advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission has

failed to show us that before holding inquiry into the

allegation, the same was verified and selected for

inquiry by the  hvPvB-evQvB KwgwU.  If for the sake of

argument, we hold that the inquiry was held by the

inquiry officer following the decision of the Commissioner following the recommendation of the hvPvB-evQvB KwgwU,  the inquiry was held by 03(three)

inquiry officers elaborately and all of them came to the

conclusion that the petitioner did not obtain any

property which is disproportionate to his known

source of income. It is stated in the inquiry report that

the petitioner along with other family members earned

money by selling avb, cvU, cuqvR, imyb, gmywi Wvj, Miæ, Mvfx Miæ, lvo Miæ, QvMj, cvjwUª gyiwM, Av!Li ¸o, grm¨, gnMwb MvQ,

Rvg MvQ, Avg MvQ, Dwo Avg MvQ, evejv MvQ, evuk Ges eZbvw`| And it is also evident from the inquiry report that the

petitioner obtained 10 decimals land at Savar from his

mother by way of gift in 1999 and purchased a Flat of

1776 square feet constructed on plot No.98/5 at Boro Mogbazar, Dhaka at a consideration of Tk. 61,44,000/-

and out of the same, they obtained loan for an amount

of Tk. 50 Lac from the Brac Bank, Head office, Dhaka

and the remaining amount was paid off against the Flat

from the dividends and interest of FDR and savings

letters. Taking into consideration of all the materials,

the inquiry officer upon perusal of all papers and documents did not find any property which appears to

be disproportionate to known source of income. The

aforesaid inquiry report was cross-checked by two

other senior officers of the Anti-Corruption Commission and then opined that the allegations

brought against the petitioner are not found true and

then recommended to terminate the inquiry proceeding

against the petitioner and not to proceed against the petitioner any more. From the inquiry reports, it is apparent that the petitioner obtained the property in innocent manner by selling different crops and agricultural products along with his salary and benefits.

The Anti-Corruption Commission may have passion for prosecution against the person who obtained property by disproportionate sources of income but if the allegation is not found true against the petitioner, it that case, the Anti-Corruption Commission should not proceed against him with a view to harassing and humiliating him in the society at the request and sweet will of the vested and interested quarters. Under the circumstances, the reason of issuing notice directing the petitioner to submit wealth statement afresh does not hold water at all.

 It is not the case of Anti-Corruption Commission that they have got additional materials by which it may be deduced that the petitioner has obtained properties which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is worthwhile to mention that on perusal and examination of Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Anti- Corruption Commission Act, 2004 read with Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007, it is apparent that during inquiry, the Commission may direct any person to furnish information and produce any document kept under his custody and may also hear any person connected to the allegation of corruption but instead of following the procedures, the issuance of fresh notice for submitting wealth statement afresh during pendency of the inquiry does not contemplate in the laws and the Rules. In view of the above circumstances, the issuance of fresh notice directing the petitioner to submit wealth statement does not sound good and legal rather it has been issued with a view to harassing and humiliating him in the

Furthermore, it is stated in the supplementary affidavit dated 12.04.2022 filed by the petitioner that the petitioner is an honest, sincere and dedicated police officer. For his excellent performance, on several occasions, he became the best officer-in- charge of different Police Stations in Bangladesh and received award and crest in this respect many times from 2007-2022. The petitioner obtained police force exemplary good service badge-2020 from the Inspector General of Police, Bangladesh, which are evident from Annexure-G to G-10. Further, it is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that during the service of the petitioner, he completed several types of professional training courses. In this respect, he received Nelson Mandela Award, a Certificate from the Department of State of United States of America, Certificate from Detective training School, Pre-

departure Orientation course from Sylhet Metropolitan Police, Certificate from Detective Training School, Certificate from Human Rights Special training, Training in Mal-practice from the Bangladesh Institute of Bank Management, Certificate from Gujrat Forensic Science University, Certificate from Dhaka Metropolitan police on Investigation and prosecution, Certificate from Police academy Computer Center and certificate from CID on Homicidal Investigation which are evident from Annexure3H to H-11. Apart from the above, the petitioner other than his professional and official duties participated in many types of social and cultural activities, such as making the people aware of drug abuse, controlling of child marriage, distribution of warm clothes to the destitute

people and distribution of gifts on the occasion of Eid

festivals etc, which were published in different online

newspapers which are evident from Annexure-I to I- 29. 

We have stated earlier that the petitioner obtained Police Force Exemplary Good service Badge-2020 by the Inspector General of Police, Bangladesh which indicates that the petitioner is good police officer who is in service with sincerity, dignity and honesty with good reputation and performance as a result of which the petitioner obtained Police Force Exemplary Good service Badge-2020.

The learned Advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission at the time hearing of the Rule could not show and produce any complaint or application before us which was allegedly filed against the petitioner by any person before the Anti-Corruption Commission. It is true that there is no bar to holding any inquiry against any person by the Anti-Corruption Commission but that inquiry must be proceeded following the provisions of law. In the instant case, it is our strong presumption that the inquiry proceeding against the petitioner was started allegedly at the

instance of some vested and designing quarters being instructed over telephone. The petitioner being a police officer is entrusted with many important tasks of the State and if the petitioner is harassed and humiliated without bona fide reason and cause, the image of the petitioner may be tarnished and at the same time, the State may also be deprived of the services of the petitioner.

Our considered view is that a person like the petitioner cannot be harassed unnecessarily and repeatedly on the basis of mere allegations of corruption, which are, on inquiry, not found true and at the same time, unless the minds of the stakeholders and the Court as well are pleased and convinced that there are bona fide reasons to hold inquiry afresh into the allegation and proceed against him in accordance with law.

It is pertinent to note that the first notice for submitting wealth statement was served upon the petitioner on 28.01.2018. The first Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 25.06.2018 holding the view that allegations of obtaining properties which are claimed to be disproportionate to his known sources of income were not found true against the petitioner. The second Inquiry Officer agreed with the first inquiry report and affirmed the same on 26.06.2018. Then the third Inquiry Officer cross-checked the above two inquiry reports and found them correct and submitted inquiry report on 09.07.2018. So none of the inquiry officers found the allegations brought against the petitioner true and satisfactory. On 27.02.2019 i.e. after about 7(seven) months from the previous inquiry report, the Anti-Corruption Commission again issued fresh notice upon the petitioner for submitting wealth statement afresh ignoring and overlooking Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 and Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and the propositions of law cited and discuss above, we find considerable force in the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner to interfere with the issuance of fresh notices as contained in (Annexure-E) to the Writ Petition. Accordingly, we find merit in this Rule.

Resultantly, the Rule is made absolute.

In consequent thereof, the impugned notice vide Memo No. 00.01.6800.613.005.18-371 dated 27.02.2019 signed and issued by the Respondent No.5, Deputy Director, Durnity Daman Commission, coordinated district office, Dhaka-2, Dhaka (Annexure-E) to the writ petition is declared illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

The respondents are directed not to harass and humiliate the petitioner in any way unless bona fide reasons are there to proceed against him.

Let a copy of the judgment and order be communicated to the respondents, at once.

Khizir Hayat, J:

 I agree