High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Mahbub Kabir v Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others
Writ Petition 13501/2025 · Rule made absolute; reinstatement directed · Decided 15 September 2026
The petitioner, a Chief Engineer of B-R Powergen Limited, was removed from service on 23.06.2020 for alleged negligence, inefficiency and misconduct over the origin of a generator for a power plant project, and his appeal was rejected. After the change of government in 2024, he applied to the Ministry for reinstatement. The Ministry asked the company to examine his case, but the Board decided there was no scope for reinstatement. The High Court Division held the petition maintainable, the company being Government-owned and performing public functions, and found that the Ministry's reconsideration gave a fresh cause of action. The Board had made a committee withdraw a report finding irregularities and relied on a later report omitting them, without identifying any rule barring reinstatement. The original inquiry denied the petitioner the chance to cross-examine witnesses, and the principal complainant sat in the Board meetings. The appellate authority ignored his specific grounds. Contractual service was no bar, since removal does not disqualify from re-employment. The orders were set aside and reinstatement directed.
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against B-R Powergen Limited, a Government-owned company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1994.
- Whether the petition was barred by delay where the Ministry had reopened the matter and the company's fresh refusal of reinstatement was challenged.
- Whether the removal, the rejection of the appeal and the refusal of reinstatement were lawful, and whether contractual service barred reinstatement.
- Incorporation under the Companies Act, 1994 does not by itself place a Government-owned company performing public functions outside writ jurisdiction; such a company is a public body within Article 102 of the Constitution.
- Where the Ministry itself reopened the matter and directed reconsideration, the company's subsequent decision constitutes a fresh and immediate cause of action, and the objection of delay cannot be considered in isolation.
- A Board may not disregard directly relevant material merely because it is not to its liking, and a refusal that identifies no rule barring reinstatement suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and non-application of mind.
- Taking only written statements, so that the employee could not cross-examine witnesses on contradictory accounts, and allowing the principal complainant to sit in the deciding Board meetings, rendered the inquiry and removal unlawful.
- An appellate authority that does not address the specific grounds raised, as required by rule 7.10(e) of the Service Rules-2016, unlawfully rejects the appeal.
- Contractual service, or expiry of the last contract term, is no bar to reinstatement, since under rule 7.4(b) removal, unlike dismissal, does not disqualify from future employment.
The fact that B-R Powergen Limited is incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1994 does not, by itself, place it outside the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division.
