GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. AAM SALEKUZZAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Government- appellant following leave is against the judgment and order dated 1-3-1998 passed Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Tribunal Appeal No. 24 of 1997 arising out of judgment and order dated 11-2-1996 passed by Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka allowing Administrative Tribunal Case No. 7 of 1994.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 who was an Executive Engineer under the Roads and Highways Directorate and working in the Roads Construction Division-I, Dhaka at the relevant time was placed under suspension and proceeded against on charges of misconduct and corruption under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 on six different allegations. He submitted his written statement on 9-5-1991 denying the allegations. Respondent No. 2 was appointed enquiry officer who upon holding submitted his report. The authority, however, ordered a second enquiry by the same officer who again submitted his report on 8-l-1992. The authority ordered yet a further enquiry report was submitted on 28-4-1992, Respondent No. 1 was then served with a second show cause notice dated 18-5-1992 and it is alleged that the first enquiry report was not enclosed with the said notice.

(3.) The Government-appellant contested the case by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made by the respondent application. It was asserted that the respondent was proceeded against on specific allegation corruption and misconduct, that the first report was incomplete and the enquiry officer was therefore, directed to enquire into the allegations more elaborately, that on receipt of the second enquiry report it was found that the sixth allegation in the charge sheet was not properly enquired into and, as such, the enquiry officer was again asked to enquire into the said allegation, that as the respondent was clearly found guilty in the second and third enquiry reports, copies of those reports were enclosed with the second show cause notice, that as the third enquiry was ordered for clarification of the second enquiry report as to the sixth allegation on the basis of documentary evidence no notice was given to the respondent for the third enquiry and that the proceeding was initiated, conducted and concluded fully in accordance with the rules and there was no illegality committed in the said proceeding.