High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Md. Manik Hossain v The Secretary, Bangladesh Parliament and others
Writ Petition 1819/2010 · Decided 12 July 2026
Three writ petitions, heard together, were brought by employees of the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat who had been appointed under the Appointment Rules, 1994 and confirmed after two years' probation. By memos dated 18 February 2010 their appointments were cancelled after a parliamentary inquiry found irregularities by the former Speaker in making appointments. The respondents filed no affidavit-in-opposition, and the Deputy Attorney General found difficulty in opposing the Rules. The High Court Division held that the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2005 govern disciplinary action against all regular officers and employees of the Secretariat and require reasons and the prescribed inquiry procedure before any penalty. The memos cited no legal provision and alleged no misconduct by the petitioners, and the inquiry was not against them or held under the 2005 Rules. Article 79 of the Constitution and the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994 make the Secretariat independent of Ministry control. The Rules were made absolute, the memos set aside and reinstatement with all benefits directed within 90 days.
- Q1
Whether the appointments of confirmed employees of the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat could be cancelled without proceedings under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2005.
- Q2
Whether the confirmed employees were entitled to a show-cause notice before their appointments were cancelled on the basis of an inquiry against the former Speaker.
- Any disciplinary action, major or minor, against regular officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat must be taken strictly in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2005, which require reasons and the prescribed inquiry procedure.
- Employees appointed and confirmed under the Appointment Rules, 1994 acquire a legal right to be dealt with under the service rules whenever cancellation of their appointment arises.
- Where no allegation of corruption or mala fide acts is made against them in obtaining their appointments, such employees are entitled to a show-cause notice before their appointments are cancelled.
- An inquiry conducted only against the former Speaker and not under the 2005 Rules could not justify cancelling the petitioners' confirmed appointments.
- Reading article 79 of the Constitution with section 3 of the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994, the Secretariat is an independent institution not subject to the administrative control of any Ministry.
the petitioners, having acquired a legal right, are also entitled to get a show cause notice before issuance of the impugned memos upon them when no allegation of corruption or any mala fide acts have been brought against them
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 1819/2010, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 8 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
2HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
3Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2010
4With
5Writ Petition No. 3833 of 2010
6With
7Writ Petition No. 6151 of 2010
8IN THE MATTER OF:
9An application under Article 102 (2) (a) (ii) of the
10Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
11AND
12IN THE MATTER OF:
13Md. Manik Hossain
….Petitioner (in W.P No. 1819 of 2010)
Versus
14The Secretary, Bangladesh Parliament, Sher-E-
15Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
….Respondents (in W.P No. 1819 of 2010),
16Md. Ayub Ali
17Md. Osman Gani
18Md. Mozammel Haque
19Faruk Sharif
20Liton Ali
21Md. Abdul Gafur
22Mohammad Azizur Rahman
23Md. Humayun Kabir Miazi
24Md. Alam Hossain
25Md. Mansur Alam
26Md. Anwar Hossain
27Md. Bashir Alam
28Md. Apan Ali
29Md. Mizanur Rahman
30Md. Nizamul Haque Molla
31Md. Taejul Islam
…. Petitioners (in W.P No. 3833 of 2010)
Versus
32The Honourable Speaker, 9th Parliament,
33Bangladesh Jatiyo Shangshad, Sher-E-Bangla
34Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
….Respondents (in W.P No. 3833 of 2010),
35Md. Humayun Kabir
36Md. Golam Hossain
37Mosammat Rashida Khatun
38Begum Safia Khatun
39Md. Abdur Rab Hawlader
…. Petitioners (in W.P No. 6151 of 2010)
Versus
The Secretary, Bangladesh Parliament, Sher-E-
Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
….Respondents (in W.P No. 6151 of 2010)
Mr. Md. Omar Farouq, Advocate with
Ms. Fatema-Tuz-Zahura, Advocate and
Mst. Sajia Sharmin, Advocate
….For the Petitioners (in all Writ Petitions)
Md. Md. Abid Chowdhury, DAG with
Mr. M Mohiuddin Yousuf, DAG,
Mr. Monjur Elahi Porag, AAG,
Mr. Ariful Alam, AAG,
Mr. Md. Nazmul Hasan Chowdhury, AAG and
Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam, AAG
…. For the respondents (in all Writ Petitions)
40Present: Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir
41And Mr. Justice S M Saiful Islam
Judgment on 12.07.2026.
42Md. Iqbal Kabir, J:
43Since common questions of law and substantially similar facts are involved in the above-noted writ petitions, those have been heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment.
44It appears all Rule Nisi have been issued in similar terms. However, for our betterment the Rule Nisi issued in Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2010, is quoted below:
“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show
cause as to why the Memo being No. h¡S¡pp/ j¡p-1/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 40(1)/
2009/ 93 dated 18.02.2010 issued by the respondent No. 2
(Annexure-D) relieving the petitioner from his confirmed service by
cancelling the appointment being Memo No. h¡S¡pp-pw-1/ (¢e−u¡N)
2(1)/ 2002/ 418 dated 20.8.2006 (Annexure-B) should not be
declared to have been without lawful authority and is of no legal
effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to
this court may seem fit and proper.”
45Short facts of above case narrated for disposal of the Rule are that a recruitment notice was published by the Respondent No. 7 inviting applications for various posts including the post of officer in the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat. Pursuant to the said recruitment notice, the petitioners applied for the advertised post. Upon completing all stages of the recruitment process and
fulfilling the prescribed requirements, the petitioners were issued appointment letters. After completing their two-year probationary period, their service was confirmed vide various dates and effective from the date of joining in the said service, considering their satisfactory performance under Rule 6(3) (ka) of the Sangshad Sachibaloya, Employees and Officers Appointment Rules, 1994. However, the respondent No. 2 issued a letter being Memo No. h¡S¡pp/ j¡p-1/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 40(1)/ 2009/ 93 dated 18.02.2010 releasing the petitioner from the service without appropriate inquiry in accordance with the Sangshad Sachibaloya Employees and Officers Appointment Rules, 1994. That being so, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, finding no other alternative, has come before the Court and obtained the present Rule Nisi.
46It is pertinent to note that each petitioner has challenged the legality of dismissal of his service. The only distinguishing features are impugned memo, therefore, same submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners in all above mentioned writ petitions.
47Mr. Md. Omar Farouq, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were appointed through a lawful recruitment process, completed probation, and their services were duly confirmed. Therefore, they could not be removed from service without following the procedure prescribed in the Sangshad Sachibalaya Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 2005 (in short, the Appeal Rules, 2005), including a departmental inquiry, show cause notice, and personal hearing. He contends that none of these mandatory procedures were followed, making the impugned orders contrary to the Rules, the principles of natural justice, and the petitioners' fundamental rights. He further argues that the removal orders were passed with mala fide intention to create vacancies for appointing favored persons and are therefore without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
48He submits the impugned memos do not mention any legal provision allowing the cancellation of the petitioners' appointments though they had
served for several years as confirmed employees. No allegation of misconduct, fraud, corruption, or violation of service rules has been made against the petitioners. The allegations relate only to the former Hon’ble Speaker in connection with the recruitment process. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be punished for any alleged irregularity committed by the appointing authority. The petitioners were removed from service without any show-cause notice, prior notice, or opportunity of hearing as required by the service rules.
49He submits the inquiry was conducted to investigate allegations against the former Hon’ble Speaker, not against the petitioners. According to him, the investigation was not conducted under the Appeal Rules, 2005. Moreover, the inquiry report contains no finding that the petitioners obtained their appointments through fraud, corruption, or any unlawful means. Therefore, their removal based on that report is unlawful.
50He further submits that a similarly situated employee had earlier challenged the same action in Writ Petition No. 2027 of 2010 and obtained a favourable judgment. Following that judgment, the authority reinstated her in service.
51Mr. M Mohiuddin Yousuf, learned DAG, finds difficulties in opposing the same; however, informed this Court that, in another matter, the writ respondent filed Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, which were allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal Nos. 145–151 of 2016, arising out of those leave petitions, were heard analogously and allowed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, review petitions were filed against the said judgment, and leave was granted. It was further directed that Civil Review Petition Nos. 290–295 of 2024 be tagged for hearing along with the Civil Appeal arising out of Civil Review Petition No. 78 of 2024.
52This Court heard the Advocate for the petitioners along with the learned Deputy Attorney General for the respondent, perused the annexures, application including the impugned orders as annexed by the petitioners in their respective applications.
53It appears from the record that the petitioners of all the writ petitions have been duly appointed for their respective posts and their appointment was made following the Rules namely “pwpc p¢Qh¡mu LjÑLaÑ¡ J LjÑQ¡l£ ¢e−u¡N ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 1994”. Their appointments were also made initially on a temporary basis subject to the terms and conditions as stated therein by issuing their appointment letters. However, the service of the petitioners was confirmed after the expiry of 2(two) years by the authority following Rule 6(3)(Ka) of the said Rules, 1994, having rendered satisfactory performance. Their appointments as well as confirmation of the service are not denied by the respondents, though the respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. No allegations of violations of any terms and conditions have been brought during their service. All of a sudden, the petitioners have been served with the respective impugned memos under the signature of the Deputy Secretary of (Manpower) of the Secretariat of Bangladesh Parliament vide order, dated 18.2.2010, cancelling their respective appointments.
54On our scrutiny, it appears that the Appeal Rules, 2005 came into effect on 15.08.2005, which applies to all officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat except those serving on contract or lien. Since the petitioners are regular employees, any disciplinary action brought against them, whether major or minor, must be taken strictly in accordance with these Rules. The Rules require the authority to state the reasons for any penalty and to follow the prescribed inquiry procedure before imposing either a major or minor punishment. Only in limited situations, such as when an employee has been convicted in a criminal case or when it is impossible to serve a show-cause notice, can the authority act differently, and even then it must record the reasons.
55In the present case, the impugned orders do not mention any legal provision under which the petitioners' appointments were cancelled after more than three years of service and after their services had been confirmed. The
orders also do not allege any misconduct or violation of service rules by the petitioners. Instead, the cancellation was based on allegations against the then Hon’ble Speaker of National Parliament that he made appointments without following the rules and government instructions. Against which parliamentary inquiry committee investigated those allegations and found irregularities made by the former Speaker. However, the inquiry was conducted only against the former Hon’ble Speaker of National Parliament, not against the petitioners, and it was not held under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2005, which remain in force under the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994.
56In the context, it has remained that we have to examine Article 79 of the Constitution, which mandates that Parliament shall have its own Secretariat and that the recruitment and conditions of service of its officers and employees shall be regulated by law.
57The National Parliament Secretariat Act, 1994, came into force on 17.05.1994. Upon combined reading of Article 79 of the Constitution and section 3 of the said Act, it is clear that the Bangladesh Parliament Secretariat is an independent institution and does not function under the administrative control of any Ministry or Government Secretariat. Further, section 21 of the Act empowers the Speaker to frame rules for regulating the recruitment and service conditions of the officers and employees of the Parliament Secretariat.
58In exercise of the powers conferred by section 21 of the Act, the Speaker, in consultation with the Parliament Secretariat Commission, framed the Parliament Secretariat Officers and Employees Appointment Rules, 1994 and subsequently the Parliament Secretariat Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which came into force on 01.11.1994 and 14.08.2005 respectively. Therefore, the allegation made in the impugned memos that the Hon’ble Speaker violated the direction issued by the Ministry of Establishment has no legal basis. Since the Parliament Secretariat is an independent constitutional institution under section 3 of Act No. 8 of 1994, it is
not subject to the administrative control of the Ministry of Establishment. The Speaker is legally empowered to make appointments to the Parliament Secretariat in accordance with the service rules framed under the Act.
59From the above facts, it is revealed that the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to the Service Rules, 1994, and their services have been confirmed accordingly; hence acquired a legal right to be dealt with under the respective Service Rules whatsoever question of cancellation of their appointment comes up. In other words, awarding penalty of termination, dismissal or removal can only be made in pursuance of the (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 2005, which is a valid law and has its force. In addition to that, the petitioners, having acquired a legal right, are also entitled to get a show cause notice before issuance of the impugned memos upon them when no allegation of corruption or any mala fide acts have been brought against them in getting their respective appointment letters. No departmental proceedings were started against the petitioners following the Rules, 2005 for the issuance of the impugned orders.
60Accordingly, we find substance in the submissions made by the Advocate for the petitioners; therefore, the Rules are made Absolute.
61The impugned Memo being No. h¡S¡pp/ j¡p-1/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 40(1)/ 2009/ 93 dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-D) in Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2010, the Memos being Nos. h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 120, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 114, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 126, h¡S¡pp- j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 127, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 117, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 115, h¡S¡ppj¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 128, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 122, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 130, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 112, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 116, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 111, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 113, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 119, h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 140 and h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px¢pxh¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 121 dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-L-L(15) in Writ Petition No. 3833 of 2010 and the Memo
No. h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px ¢px h¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 123, Memo No. h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px ¢px h¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 124, Memo No. h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px ¢px h¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 125, Memo No. h¡S¡pp-j¡p- 3/ S¡px ¢px h¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 129 Hhw Memo No. h¡S¡pp-j¡p-3/ S¡px ¢px h¡x/ 3(4)/ 2009/ 131 all dated 18.02.2010 (Annexure-G-G(4) in Writ Petition No. 6151 of 2010 relieving the petitioners from their confirmed services by cancelling their appointment are hereby set aside.
62However, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in their respective service/posts with all benefits within 90 (ninety) days from the date of the judgment and order of this Court, if otherwise not disqualified.
63There will be no order as to costs.
64Communicate the order. S M Saiful Islam, J:
I agree.
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
