Bangladesh Bank and others vs. Mohammad Abdul Mannan [1994 14 BLD (AD) 117] & [46 DLR (1994) 1]
Bangladesh Bank and others vs. Mohammad Abdul Mannan
1994 14 BLD (AD) 117 & 46 DLR (1994) 1
Civil Appeal Nos. 42 and 79 of 1992
Date of Decision
Name of the Parties
Mohammad Abdul Mannan
Whether the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is well-founded in Law and fact in holding that the impugned termination is a "punishment in disguise".
These two appeals, one filed by Bangladesh Bank and the other by the then General Manager in the Engineering Department of the Bank, Mr. Abdul Mannan, are directed against an Order of the Administrate Appellate Tribunal declaring void an Order of the employer terminating the service of the employee by paying three months, pay in lieu of three months notice. After 8 years' service, on 29 December 1988, he was terminated by the Board of Directors of the Bank under the Bank's Staff Regulation No. (ii). Then he challenged this Order by a Writ Petition before the High Court Division which, after issuing a Rule thereon and hearing the parties, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that Writ Jurisdiction was not attracted in this case as it was exclusively within the Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. Then he filed application before the Administrative Tribunal by challenging his termination alleging that it was a punishment in disguise without giving him an Opportunity to defend himself. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal rejected this contention and dismissed his application. He challenged the Order of the Tribunal by filing an appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal which accepted his contention and found that the Order of termination was a punishment in disguise and that since the Order of termination was made on consideration of certain allegations against the employee, his case attracted
It provides that any employee who commits a breach of the Regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency, or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Bank or who commits breach of discipline or is guilty of any other misconduct etc. shall be liable to penalties, the highest penalty being dismissal from service. The impugned Order of termination shows that this employee has been "released" from his service with the approval of the Board of Directors under Regulation 12 (ii) and that he is entitled to three months' pay in lieu of three months' notice. The word "released" actually means termination of his service and this Order is within four corners of Regulation 12 (ii). It does not contain stigma, nor does it show that the employee's service has been terminated because of any breach of discipline or misconduct. It is also not the case o of this employee that his termination has been made with any malafide intention. How then, he can allege that it is a punishment in disguise?
Their service regulations may be amended so as to meet the end of justice as well as the requirement of time
In the result Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1992 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1992 is dismissed. The impugned Order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside and that of the Administrative Tribunal is restored.