GOVERNMENT OF BANGLA­DESH Vs. ABUL KHAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Bangladesh and others seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal Dhaka in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 57 of 2000 dated 24-4-2002 allowing the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18-4-2000 passed by the Administrative Tribunal Dhaka dismissing AT Case No. 114 of 1998 and setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement passed on 27-2-1997 and thereby restoring the respondent to his former post treating him on duty with all financial and other benefits as admissible under the rules.

(2.) The respondent filed an application under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 being Administrative Tribunal Case No. 114 of 1998 stating, inter alia, that he was appointed as Postal Clerk on 7-9-1971 and subsequently he was promoted to the rank of Asstt Post Master (Non Gazetted) on 13-11-1991. During the tenure of his service he was directly associated with the Trade Union Activities. He held the office of Secretary, Vice-President as well as the President of Dhaka District Sadar Postal Union. Mr. Arun Kumar Sarker, the then Additional Director General Bangladesh Post Office used to invite false and frivolous written allegation against the elected Union office bearers. On the basis of anonymous petition he transferred the respondent to Dhaka GPO from Sadarghat Post Office and a number of inquiries were held to victimise the respondent. Subsequently a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the respondent bringing several charges at the instance of said Arun Kumar Sarker, ADG and a charge sheet drawn up on 6-4-1996 was sent to the respondent. The respondent submitted reply to the allegations mentioning some irregularities and mistakes for which he was not responsible and the Government did not sustain any financial loss due to the alleged irregularities Had there been really any financial loss the same could have been reported to law enforcing agencies but the authority proceeded against the respondent with the departmental proceeding by appointing Mr. Abdus Sattar APMG (Security) who issued notice to the respondent on 4-7-1996 fixing 8-7-1996 for appearance and hearing. The respondent appeared before him and he was Oven questionnaire to which lie was directed to reply in writing. The Enquiry Officer conduced enquiry is violation of the prescribed rules of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985.

(3.) The petitioners contested the case filing written statement denying material allegations stating, inter alia, that the respondent was appointed as Postal Clerk and he joined in service on 7-9-1971. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Assistant Post Master and had been working in the said post from 14-11-1991. During the tenure of his service allegations were received against him for misappropriation of money from passbook account and Savings Defence Accounts of Post Office Branch wherein he was posted. The allegations were enquired into by the Additional Director General (Saving and Insurance) Postal Department. During enquiry it was found that one Dejindra Chandra Dutta opened Account No. RD1412 and received interest of the deposit on several occasions. Account No. 4357 was opened in the same Post Office in his name against the Rules. Again, his another Account bearing No. FD 4740 was brought to the same Post Office on transfer. Respondent was acquainted with the said Dejindra Chandra Dutta and he was known to him since long and at his instance several accounts were opened illegally in the Post Office. Huge amount of Government money was unlawfully disbursed to him from those accounts. Similarly, number of accounts were opened in the name of Himangsu Dutta and Prodip Kumar Dutta, sons of the aforesaid Dejindra Chandra Dutta most illegally causing financial loss to the Government. It was also found that the respondent tried to misappropriate Taka 6000 at the time of payment of a Defence Savings Certificate. When the occurrence of temporary defalcation came to the knowledge of the authority the respondent deposited the amount of Taka 6000. He was found to have written excess amount by interpolation for the purpose of alleged misappropriation of Taka 6000 from Account No. FG 2091. So, in view of the aforesaid allegations charges were framed in the departmental proceeding against the respondent under rules 3(b) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985.