GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. MD. AFZAL HOSSAIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal by the opposite party before the Administrative tribunal by leave is against the judgment and order dated October 26, 1998 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal (AAT) in Appeal No. 9 of 1998 affirming the judgment and order dated January 11, 1998 of the Administrative Tribunal (AT), Dhaka in Case No. 93 of 1996. The Administrative Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment and order considering compulsory retirement from the service has altered the said punishment to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years (within the meaning of sub- rule (2) (c) of Rule 4 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985) and further made the order to the opposite party in the Administrative Tribunal Case to reinstate the petitioner (respondent herein) in the AT Case.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that, respondent Store Officer of Bangladesh Survey Department, Tejgaon, Dhaka in the Office of the Surveyor General, filed AT Case No. 93 of 1996 questioning legality of imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service sequel to department inquiry held against him on the charge that during the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 stationery item, Lithu paper, was purchased illegally from the paper local market for an amount of Taka 24,75,748 without obtaining non-availability certificate from the Stationery Department and that also without bringing to the notice of the higher authority principles of purchase as were in the Memo dated July 29, 1985 of the Ministry of Finance and that received current account cheques instead of bank draft or pay order from the bidders and, as such, committed gross negligence of duty making him liable to be punished for misconduct and corruption. On the said allegations the respondent was served with a show cause notice accompanying statement of charges and to that he replied and thereupon an inquiry was held and the inquiry committee submitted report with the finding that the respondent was guilty of the charges brought against him. Thereupon the department served the 2nd show cause notice mentioning the proposed punishment and to that the respondent replied. The Department finally made the order of compulsory retirement from service in respect of the respondent. The respondent as against the order of his compulsory retirement by order dated December 30, 1995 filed appeal and the same was dismissed on April 2, 1996. Thereafter, the respondent filed AT Case No. 93 of 1996. The Administrative Tribunal upon arriving at the finding I under the facts and circumstances of the case cannot but to hold that the petitioner having been found guilty of inefficiency and misconduct, the punishment of compulsory retirement is not illegal. The question of quantum was not ordinarily considered. In this particular case the punishment awarded is found harsh and unreasonably severe in consideration of the nature of the charges" altered the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of 3 annual increments for 3 years.

(3.) The appellant went on appeal before the AAT. The AAT upon observing "It will appear that for the purchase of the Lithu papers a Tender Committee of which the applicant was the Member Secretary was formed by the OP No. 3 and everything was done through the committee. So, the applicant could not be said to have had any direct involvement or responsibility in connection with the purchase. On a plain reading of the charge sheet it appears that the only definite and effective charge against the applicant is that he did not bring to the notice of OP No. 3 the relevant rules and regulations that for the local purchases of the huge quantity of the Lithu papers non-availability certificate and the Government approval was necessary. He has been found guilty of such allegationthe repeated assertions of the then Surveyor General in his correspondence dated 20-5-1993, 14-7-1993 and 28-3-1994 about his power to make local purchase addressed to the Ministry of Defence in reply to queries of other rather minimise the gravity of the negligence of the applicant. In our view, therefore the learned Tribunal has very correctly assessed the material on record in finding that the penalty of compulsory retirement has been harsh and that minor penalty would meet the ends of justice" dismissed the appeal.