BANGLADESH BANK Vs. MOHAMMAD ABDUL MANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, one filed by an employer and the other by an employee, are directed against an order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, dated 25 June 1992, declaring void an order of the employer terminating the service of the employee by paying three months pay in lieu of three months notice.

(2.) The employer is Bangladesh Bank and the employee, Abdul Mannan, is the then General Manager in the Engineering Department of the Bank. At the material time the employee was a confirmed class I officer of the Bank having to his credit about 8 years service. The Board of Directors of the Bank, by an order dated 29 December 1988 terminated his service under the Bank's Staff Regulation No. 12 (ii). 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, established under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 as amended up to date. The employeehe is Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1992 and Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1992 then filed an application before the Administrative Tribunal (AT Case No. 350 of 1989) challenging his termination alleging, among other things, that the termination was not a termination simpliciter, but it was a punishment in disguise, such as removal/dismissal from service, without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected this contention and dismissed his application by an order dated 29 August, 1991. He challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing an appeal (Appeal No. 71 of 1991) 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 the provision of the Bank's Regulation No. 22 which provided for giving the employee a pre-hearing but that having not been done the order of termination was illegal and void.

(3.) The Bank obtained leave from us and filed Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1992 in which the main contention is that the order of termination is in fact a simple order for termination without giving any stigma to the employee and that Regulation No. 22 is not attracted to his case as this Regulation is intended for awarding any punishment to an employee and that the Appellate Tribunal misinterpreted this Regulation and wrongly interfered with the order of termination.