BANGLADESH Vs. ABDUL LATIF CHOKDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Government of Bangladesh-appellant is against the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka on 10-6-93 in Appeal No. 30 of 1992 setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka on 21-3-92 in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 126 of 1987. The respondent filed the case before the Administrative Tribunal against an order of his removal from service passed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Bangladesh alleging that he was appointed as an Auditor in 1948 in the local audit department of the office of the then Accountant General, East Pakistan. Subsequently through promotion he became audit and accounts officer in the office of the Director General, Audit and Accounts Training Academy and while working as such the Comptroller and Auditor General drew up a departmental proceeding against him under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976 on 14-3-78 and issued show cause notice to which he replied denying the charges. On 25-9-78 he was illegally removed from his service. He filed an appeal against the said order to the Ministry of Finance through the Comptroller and Auditor General but instead of forwarding the same the Comptroller and Auditor General returned the appeal saying that the respondent having been removed from service for criminal conviction, there was no provision of appeal. The respondent asserted that at the relevant time he was a Class I Officer and the President was his appointing authority and, as such, he was the only competent authority to remove him from service and no one else.

(2.) The appellant in its written statement, inter alia, alleged that the respondent is a corrupt officer who was convicted and sentenced by a summary Military Court at Comilla for defalcation of Taka 35,591.00 of the Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Comilla while on deputation here. He was suspended from service since his arrest on 10-4-76. After serving out his sentence he applied for joining the service when a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him and the Establishment Ministry was requested to appoint an inquiry officer but the Ministry informed that as the respondent was convicted on a criminal offence, no show cause was necessary in his case. Thereafter he was removed from service by order dated 25-9-78. Although the respondents post was upgraded to a Class I post since 1-7-73, he and other officers of his rank are governed regarding matters of appointment, promotion, etc, by the Auditor Generals Manual Standing Orders since no recruitment rules were made in connection with their service prior to 30-3-83. The Comptroller and Auditor General is the appointing authority of the respondent under paragraph 120 ch. IV of the said Orders and, as such, he was quite competent to remove him from service.

(3.) The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case after holding that the Comptroller and Auditor General being the appointing authority was competent to pass the impugned order and that the case was also barred by limitation.