ABDUL KHALEQUE (MD) Vs. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner (who filed Administrative Tribunal case No. 98 of 1989 of the Administrative Tribunal Dhaka) is from the Judgment and order dated 22-08-94 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 10 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioner filed Administrative Tribunal Case No. 98 of 1989 before the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka against the Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh-respondent for declaration that the order of compulsory retirement dated 26-11-88 passed by the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice was illegal and void and also for a declaration that he was in service. His case was that while he was a Sheristader in the Court of District Judge, Patuakhali he submitted a report to the concerned authority that Abdur Rashid Chaklader, ex-nazir of the Court of District Judge, Patuakhali, forged certified copies and misappropriated court fees. The said Nazir was compulsorily retired from service for such offence and he became inimical to the petitioner. Thereafter on the basis of some anonymous letters against the petitioner the learned District Judge submitted reports both to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice against the petitioner and also to the Registrar, Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred from Patuakhali to Pabna as a Sheristader. The Ministry of Law and Justice held an enquiry on the basis of such letters and the petitioner was served with charges to which he submitted explanation. Thereafter an enquiry was held by the Subordinate Judge of Patuakhali against the petitioner but he found that the charge could not be established. The petitioner alleged that in spite of the said report, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and he was served with a second show cause notice against the proposed penalty to which he submitted reply-pleading innocence. But by order dated 26-11-88 he was compulsorily retired from service. His appeal against that order to the Government also failed. He filed a petition for review which was also rejected on 26-02-89. Hence this case against the order of compulsory retirement from service.

(3.) The Government-respondent contested the case by filing written statement stating that for specific allegations department proceeding was started against the petitioner, an enquiry was held, charges were established and the enquiry-officer submitted report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Then he was served with a second show cause notice but his reply was found to be unsatisfactory. He was then compulsorily retired from service. No illegality was committed by the impugned order.