AVP, UTTARA BANK LTD. Vs. SHAHABUDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule issued on an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-11-1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 1st Court, Mymensingh on Other Appeal No. 126 of 1999 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1999 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Gafargaon, Mymensingh in Other Suit No. 53 of 1994 decreeing the suit.

(2.) The facts leading to the issuance of the Rule, in brief, are that the opposite party No. 1 as a plaintiff filed Other Class Suit No. 196 of 1992 in the Court of the Senior Assistant Judge, Mymensingh Sadar in which the petitioner was the defendant No. 3 for declaration that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff-opposite party No.1 from the service vide Memo No. HO/ADMN/DD/91/6-B dated 5-1-1991 issued by the petitioner-defendant No.3 is illegal, malafide, inoperative and without legal effect and that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 is still in service of the Uttara Bank with a direction to reinstate him in service.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1, in brief, is that he was appointed as a Cashier in the then Nationalised Uttara Bank on 9-11-1977 and he joined in that post at Ghorashal (Narsingdi) Branch of the Bank on 25-11-1977. Subsequently, he was transferred to the different branches of the bank. He was promoted to the post of Officer Grade-II (Cash) and ultimately, posted at Mymensingh Branch of the Bank. While he was working there on 13-5-1989 he met with a road accident and his both hands were fractured. He was under treatment for about 5/6 months and after recovery he joined in his office at Mymensingh Branch in the month of November 1989. In spite of specific instruction from the Government that on the Victory Day the national flag would be hoisted on all Government and Semi-Government offices, the defendant No. 5, the Manager of Mymensingh Branch of Uttara Bank Limited did not hoist national flag on the Bank Building. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 as a freedom fighter protested his such act. At this he became annoyed upon him. While the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 was working in Mymensingh Branch he was transferred by the letter dated 4-21990 to Khulna Branch. He made a representation to the authority to cancel that order of transfer on the ground of his ill health and requested to transfer him to any other branch of the Bank at Tangail or Netrokona or Kishoregonj. But the authority did not pay heed to it and by an order dated 7-3-1990 released him. After receipt of that order of release he fell ill and was under treatment for 7 (seven) months. After recovery from illness he by a letter dated 22-3-1990 requested the defendant No.4 to cancel his transfer order but the defendant No. 4 instead of considering his such prayer by a memo dated 3-4-1990 asked him to join in his new place of posting in the Khulna Branch of the Bank. He again, by another letter dated 10-4-1990 with a Medical Certificate prayed for cancellation of the transfer order informing the authority that due to illness he was not in a position to join at the new place of posting. The defendant No. 4 by the letter dated 21-5-1990 framed charge against him for gross negligence of duty, insubordination and misconduct asking him to show cause within 7(seven) days as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against him. He submitted his reply on 3-6-1990. The defendant No.6, the Vice-President of the Bank, by a letter dated 23-6-1990 illegally asked him to appear before him at Khulna with all the necessary papers and documents for the purpose of enquiry. He on receipt of such notice informed the defendant No. 6 that due to illness he was not in a position to appear before him at Khulna and requested him to make necessary arrangement for holding enquiry at Mymensingh, but in vain. The defendant Nos. 6-8, the members of the Enquiry Board, without intimating him submitted an ex parte report finding him guilty of the charges levelled against him. He after recovery from the illness went to Khulna and joined his duty on 7-101990. But the Manager of Khulna Branch did not allow him to join in duty. The defendant No. 4 by a letter dated 28-10-1990 informed him that the authority had decided to dismiss him from the service of the Bank and asked him to show cause within 10(ten) days as to why punishment of dismissal from service would not be imposed upon him. Then, by a letter dated 11-11-1990 he gave reply. But the authority without giving him an opportunity of being heard, by a letter dated 5-11991 issued under the signature of the defendant No. 4 dismissed him from the service. Thereafter, he submitted a grievance petition on 6-2-1991 to the higher authority which was rejected. Then he filed the suit.