GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. KAMRUL HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal, by leave, is against the judgment and order dated August 4, 1997 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal (AAT) in Appeal No. 87 of 1996 allowing the same. The appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.1996 of the Administrative Tribunal (AT) Dhaka in Case No. 310 of 1994 dismissing the same.

(2.) Respondent filed the aforesaid case before the AT challenging the order dated 18.8.1994 of the Ministry of Finance cancelling his appointment as Economic Counselor in Bangladesh Embassy at Stockholm in Sweden alleging that the order of cancellation was malafide and arbitrary and opposed to the principle of natural justice. 2(1).Facts, in short, are that respondent belongs to B.C.S. (Audit and Account) Cadre and in October, 1991 he joined the Muktijuddha Kallyan Trust as Director (Finance) on deputation. The Ministry of Finance, Economic Relations Division by a circular dated 11.8.1993 invited applications for appointment as Economic Counsellor in the Economic wing of Bangladesh Embassy at Stockholm in Sweden from the Senior Government Offices of all Ministries and Divisions not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. The respondent submitted his application and appeared before a Selection Committee and came out successfully. By a notification dated 19.6.1994 the President appointed the respondent as Economic Counsellor of the said Embassy. By the order dated 29.6.1994 Government sanctioned to the respondent an amount of Tk. 4, 73,360/- for travelling and other incidental expenses for himself and his family to join his new assignment. While the respondent was making preparations to join he received Memo, dated 14.8.1994 communicating stay of the order of appointment and thereafter by the Memo, dated 14.8.1994 the respondent's appointment was cancelled.

(3.) It is the contention of the respondent that before cancelling his appointment, he was not given any opportunity of being heard. He made representation but without any result. Thereafter by the Memo, dated 20.8.1994 he was asked to deposit the money released to him earlier for travelling and other incidental expenses. Respondent deposited Tk. 1,97,7807 by a chalan and preferred an appeal to the President against the order of cancellation and the same was rejected.