Government Servants (Special Provisions), Ordinance, 1979
Sections 3(B), 5(2)
বিজ্ঞান ও শিল্প গবেষণা পরিষদের কর্মচারী চাকুরী প্রবিধানমালা, ১৯৮৯
Sections 1
The plaintiff-respondents claimed that before dismissal from their respective service, they were not served any show cause notices, though the defendant-appellants claimed that they served show cause notices and the notices were also duly published in the daily newspapers but the plaintiff-respondents refused any kind of service of notices. It appears from the record that the first show cause notice under section 3(B) of the Government Servants (Special Provisions), Ordinance, 1979 dated 28.11.2002 was served giving 5[five] days’ time and the second show cause notice under section 5(2) of the Government Servants (Special Provisions), Ordinance, 1979 dated 21.01.2003 was served giving 3[three] days’ time. As the plaintiff-respondents are the permanent employees of BCSIR, the procedure of serving notice shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and otherwise, the procedures are left to be followed illegally. Apart from this, Dw-1, in cross-examination, admitted that he had no knowledge whether the notices were served upon the plaintiff-respondents or not. It is revealed that the inquiry was held without having any knowledge of the plaintiff-respondents and the dismissal from service without affording opportunity of defence is illegal and arbitrary being violative of the principle of natural justice. It is also revealed that all the procedures of servicing notices, inquiry and dismissal had taken place under the Government Servants (Special Provisions), Ordinance, 1979 but it is obvious that the plaintiff-respondents are the employees of Bangladesh Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It is Appellate Division’s considered view that the defendant-appellants adopted wrong forum to dismiss the plaintiff-respondents from their services. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, this Division is of the view that the High Court Division is justified in allowing the appeals. .....Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research =VS= Begum Parvin, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 78] ....View Full Judgment

Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 2(Cha), 3(Kha), 4(3)(Ga)
Government Servants (Special Provision) Ordinance 1979
Section 4(Ka), 4(Kha)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
The High Court Division's direction to refund of all his entitlements and back salaries with other allowances are not also sustainable in law— It is a matter of record that the writ petitioner has been carrying on his occupation in Canada and maintaining his livelihood for long nine years. The writ petitioner was given opportunities time and again to join the Head Office of the Bureau, but every time he grossly defaulted by flouting office orders. Hence he was rightly dismissed from the service of the Bureau and his appeal was also rightly dismissed. The question of negotiation regarding arrears of salary for the last several years being misconceived could not arise. The writ petitioner after about 10 years service at EPB Milan Branch, Italy when transferred to the Head Office at Dhaka took a high handed and arbitrary attitude and had been continuing to refuse to join the Head Office on different pretexts, one after another.
The writ petitioner has been deliberately absenting himself from his duties without joining his service at Dhaka. Thus the High Court Division had no jurisdiction to sift the materials or resolve the disputed question of facts in its writ jurisdiction and to find out whether the appellants had sufficient materials before it to pass the impugned order of dismissal or not. In the instant case, apart from the fact that he was proceeded with lawfully, during all these period between the termination of his service, the writ petitioner admittedly served in Canada or engaged himself in carrying on business at Canada. In any view of the matter, when he did not serve the Bureau he would not be entitled to any remuneration for the period even upto the writ petitioner's attaining the age of supernuation and in that view of the mater as well the High Court Division's direction to refund of all his entitlements and back salaries with other allowances are not also sustainable in law. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division are set aside. .....Export Promotion Bureau =VS= Md. Nazmul Hossain, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 298] ....View Full Judgment