GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESHS Vs. SHEIKH MUNSUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil appeal by way of leave, is against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2000 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal Dhaka in Appeal No. 317 of 1996 allowing the appeal reversing judgment and order dated 14.2.1996 passed by the Administrative tribunal in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 45 of 1995 dismissing the case ex parte.

(2.) The respondent filed the above Administrative Tribunal Case No. 45 of 1995 stating, inter alia, that while serving as Bench Assistant of 2nd Court of Subordinate Judge, Khulna, he was charge sheeted on the allegations that he on his transfer failed to hand over the records of three cases to his successor at the time of making charge and he also failed to obtain the signature of the Presiding Officer in the judgment passed in Special Tribunal Case No. 116 of 1991 though he was in custody of the records of the above case and as such he was guilty of negligence of duty and corruption. The respondent denied both the charges. Thereafter an enquiry was held by A.F.M. Aminul Islam, the Subordinate Judge, who after enquiry found the respondent guilty of negligence of duty and corruption for not handing over the files of three special tribunal cases to his successor and also for not obtaining signature of the Presiding Officer in the judgment passed in Special Tribunal Case No.116 of 1991. The appellant did not contest the above case before the Administrative Tribunal. After hearing by judgment and order dated 14.2.1996 the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case ex parte holding that allegations brought against the respondent have been proved in the enquiry and there was no illegality in the departmental proceeding. The respondent then preferred the aforesaid Appeal No. 31 of 1996 and the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, after hearing, allowed the appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Administrative Tribunal having found that no illegality have been committed by the enquiry officer, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the appeal and that charge of corruption having been leveled in the charge sheet the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in finding that there was no charge of corruption in the charge sheet. The learned counsel further submits that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in interfering with the departmental proceeding in setting aside the order of dismissal.