The Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals and Administrative Appellate Tribunal

Article 117(1) of the Constitution empowers the Government to establish Administrative Tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons in the service of the Republic including the award of penalties and punishments. By Article 117(2) no court shall entertain any proceedings or make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such tribunal. Therefore, a public servant or Government official can recourse to administrative tribunal if he or she is aggrieved by a decision which concerns the terms or conditions of his/her service or challenge any order of penalty imposed upon him by the Government. 

The orders which can be challenged in the Tribunal includes temporary suspension from service for enquiry about misconduct, dismissal or removal from service, discharged from service, withholding of pay-scale or increment, deprivation from any service benefit including housing and pension rights and transfer from one workplace to another. 

The establishment and jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals is contained in sections 3 and 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980. An Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made by any person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority in respect of the terms and conditions of his service including pension rights, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority. 

If there is any provision for appeal or review against the order before a higher authority of the Government, such forum must be availed or exhausted prior to filing application before the Administrative Tribunal. However, the higher authority is required to pass its decision on such appeal or review within two months from the date of filing the appeal or review, otherwise such appeal or review will be deemed to be disallowed. 

There is a specific limitation period for moving before the Administrative Tribunal which is 6 (six) months from the date of making the concerned decision or order by the Government.

Whether persons appointed in statutory public authorities can recourse to the Administrative Tribunal?

The schedule to the ATA 1980 lists the statutory public bodies and the employees of the said bodies or corporations can move to the Administrative Tribunal regarding the terms and conditions of their service. These include the officials of the Bangladesh Bank, Civil Aviation Authority, Sonali Bank Limited, Janata Bank Limited and Agrani Bank Limited. The entire schedule can be accessed here. 

The procedure of appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

The Administrative Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any order or decision of an Administrative Tribunal. Any person aggrieved by an order or decision of an Administrative Tribunal may, within three months from the date of making of the order or decision, prefer an appeal to the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. 

The decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal can be challenged by way of filing of civil petition for leave to appeal before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh following Article 103 of the Constitution.

Can an aggrieved public servant file a writ petition before the High Court Division challenging an order passed by the Government concerning his/her service?

In Bangladesh & ors Vs Sontosh Kumar Shaha & ors, reported in 6 SCOB [2016] AD it has been held by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Bangladesh that except on the limited scope challenging the vires of law or if there is violation of fundamental rights, the power of the High Court Division is totally ousted under clause (5) of article 102 read with article 117(2). If a public servant or an employee of statutory corporation wants to invoke his fundamental rights in connection with his terms and conditions of service, he must lay foundation in the petition of the violation of the fundamental rights by sufficient pleadings in support of the claim. It will not suffice if he makes evasive statement of violation of his fundamental rights or that by making stray statements that the order is discriminatory or malafide. 

The apex court further observed that if an order is said to be without jurisdiction or is contrary to law, the appropriate course open to the applicant is to plead to the Tribunal with such plea and ask for vacating the order or action. It is altogether within the tenor of the Tribunal. Moreover, if any administrative action is found without jurisdiction or coram non judice or malafide, the Tribunal is competent to deal with the same and adjudicate these issues satisfactorily. These issues are within its constituents of the Administrative Tribunal. 

The Appellate Division held that the Administrative Tribunal is also empowered to pass an interim order to prevent the abuse of process of the court in a case of emergency or that if an interim order is not passed the loss to be suffered by the aggrieved public servant cannot be compensated in monetary terms. 

The full judgment passed by the Appellate Division reported in reported in 6 SCOB [2016] AD can be read online here.

Service matter lawyer, writ lawyer, administrative tribunal advocate, supreme court lawyer and best law firm.