Skip to content

Monday | February 09, 2026 | Dhaka

Nature and degree of crime more important than procedural defects

Appellate Division
(Civil)
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Md Imman Ali J
Md Anwarul Haque J
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and another………. ………….Petitioners
vs
Md Bazlur Rashid
…………..Respondent*
Judgment
November 21st, 2013
Police Force
Serious allegation regarding a member of the disciplined force, who was entrusted with protection of the public and who allegedly himself became the perpetrator against the public, cannot be set at naught for technical defects in the departmental inquiry and proceedings. .. …. (8)
Sujit Kumar Majumder vs Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Dhaka, 51 DLR AD 145 ref.
Rajik-al-Jalil, Deputy Attorney-General, instructed by Gias Uddin Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record -For the Petitioner.
Pankaj Kumar Kundu, Advocate, instructed by Md Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record -For the Respondent.
Judgment
Md Imman Ali J: This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-4-2010 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal in AAT Case No. 66 of 2007 allowing the appeal in part.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the instant Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal are as follows:
The respondent Md Bazlur Rashid (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was appointed as a Constable in the Police Force on 7-6-1998, his appointing authority being the Commandant (sp) Force, Uttara, Dhaka (respondent No. 3 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal). A departmental proceeding was drawn up against the respondent for which the inquiry officer was the Senior Police Superintendent. On the basis of his report the Commandant framed charge against the respondent on 16-2-2002. At the same time a separate criminal case was filed against the respondent. The respondent submitted written reply in the departmental proceedings which having not been considered in his favour, he was suspended on 28-2-2002. The respondent requested copies of the inquiry report and the statement of the witnesses on 5-3-2002 but those were not supplied to him. On 11-3-2002 he submitted his written reply claiming to be innocent and praying for discharge from the departmental case. He was dismissed by order dated 21-3-2002 passed by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the respondent before us filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police on 24-3-2002 which having been dismissed on 22-4-2002 he filed the case before the Administrative Tribunal.
3. The respondent No. 3 contested the case before the Administrative Tribunal by filing written statement stating that the respondent before us had been charged under section 5 (Kha) of the Jana Nirapatta (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, accused of, inter alia hijacking and misconduct.
After hearing both the parties the Administrative Tribunal by judgment and order dated 8-2-2007 allowed the case of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement in service and for payment of arrear salary and benefits. On appeal by the petitioners before us, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal in part directing the authority concerned to reinstate the respondent in service, but ordered that he will not be entitled to arrear salary and benefits from the date of his suspension on 28-2-2002 until his reinstatement and that period shall be counted as special leave.
4. Mr Rajik-al-Jalil, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the charge against the respondent was serious in nature. The respondent being a Constable appointed for maintaining law and order and for protection of the general public was himself involved in hijacking and, as such, his reinstatement should not be allowed for technical defects in the inquiry and departmental proceedings.
5. Mr Pankaj Kumar Kundu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the criminal case which was brought against the respondent was ultimately dismissed and the respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
He further submits that the preliminary inquiry held against the respondent was carried out by someone other than the appointing authority which is in contravention of the Police Officers (Bishes Bidhan) Addhadesh 1976, which requires that the inquiry must be done by the appointing authority. He finally submits that the inquiry report and statement of witnesses having not been supplied to the respondent, he was prejudiced and the whole proceeding stands vitiated being in gross violation of the principle of natural justice.
Learned advocate has referred to the decision in the case of Sujit Kumar Majumder vs Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Dhaka reported in 51 DLR AD 145, wherein this Division upheld the decision of the Administration Appellate Tribunal where the employee had been reinstated in service without arrear salary and financial benefits.
He also referred to the unreported decision in Government of Bangladesh vs Syed Ali Imam wherein Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 720 of 2001 was dismissed upholding the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and Administrative Tribunal setting aside the dismissal as the employee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties concerned and perused the materials before us the first decision of this Division referred by the learned advocate which was also the basis of the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is one where the delinquent employee was absent from his duty on the ground of illness without prior permission.
In that case the dismissal by the authority concerned was set-aside by the Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the dismissal was imposed without giving any second show cause notice to the petitioner. That
decision was upheld by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal and also by this Division.
7. In the second decision referred by the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent the employee had been charged with commission of an unnatural offence (sodomy) with mess boys and of writing an anonymous letter to his authority making false allegation against his fellow police personnel.
8. In the instant case we find that the allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature. He is alleged to have been part of a group of 3 Constables who were involved in hijacking and extortion. It is our view that such a serious allegation regarding a member of the disciplined force, who was entrusted with protection of the public and who allegedly himself became the perpetrator against the public, cannot be set at naught for technical defects in the departmental inquiry and proceedings.
9. We are of the view that the earlier decisions of this Division referred by the learned Advocate for the respondent can be distinguished in the facts of the instant case.
In the result the civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of in the light of the above observations. The authority concerned is directed to proceed afresh with departmental proceedings against the delinquent Police Constable in accordance with the relevant law and regulations, upon supplying him with all the evidence found against him and giving him an opportunity to make proper representation in respect of the evidence and materials supporting the allegations against him.