MD. ANWAR HOSSAIN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KHULNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2006 of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal Dhaka passed in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No.121 of 1995 allowing the appeal upon setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.6.1995 of the Administrative Tribunal Dhaka passed in Administrative Tribunal Case No.50 of 1993 allowing the case.

(2.) The petitioner filed the above Administrative Tribunal Case No.50 of 1993 on the averments that Daulatpur P.S. Case No.8 dated 3.3.1980 was started against him for receiving bribe and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against him and the petitioner was put under suspension and after 9 months and 8 days from the date of suspension the respondent No.1 framing charge against the petitioner asked him to submit reply within 7 days which the petitioner duly complied and then though the petitioner prayed for stay of the departmental proceeding against him till disposal of the criminal case but the said prayer was rejected; though the allegations made against the petitioner were not proved the Investigating Officer submitted his report on 30.4.1982 giving opinion to remove the petitioner from service and then the respondent No.1 removed the petitioner from service. As against that the petitioner preferred departmental appeal on 26.5.1982 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Khulna Range, the respondent No.2, but the appellate authority did not communicate to the petitioner any result of the above appeal and so the petitioner filed an application to the Inspector General of Police, the respondent No.3, praying for reinstating him in his service but by order dated 24.1.93 the above prayer was rejected. The respondent No.1 contested the above case and filed written objection contending that the enquiry against the petitioner was duly held and the petitioner being found guilty therein, was removed from his service and no illegality or irregularity was committed in the departmental proceeding. The Administrative Tribunal, after hearing, allowed the case and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in his service with all financial benefits. The respondent No.1 then preferred Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No.121 of 1995 and after hearing by the impugned judgment and order the same was allowed.

(3.) The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner submitted that during inquiry the witnesses of the respondents failed to prove the allegation of receiving bribe of Tk. 500/- by the petitioner and the Administrative Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances rightly ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner but the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, without discussing as to whether the guilt of the petitioner has been proved, on mere presumption, observed that the appeal of the petitioner before the appellate authority was rejected earlier than 6.1.1993 and further the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, without reversing the findings of the Administrative Tribunal as to the point of limitation, erroneously allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal.