Dismissal Unlawful for Denying Opportunity to Cross-Examine Witnesses; High Court Orders Reinstatement

Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Finding these procedural defects sufficient to render the dismissal unlawful, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh ordered the reinstatement of an engineer.

The Court also observed that the registration of a government-owned or government-controlled company under company law does not automatically exclude it from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 102 of the Constitution. Where an organisation performs functions connected with public interest and its decisions involve elements of public law, those decisions may be subject to judicial review.

A bench comprising Justice Urmee Rahman and Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar of the High Court Division delivered the judgment on 15 September 2026 in Md. Mahbub Kabir v. Government of Bangladesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 13501 of 2025. The judgment was published on the Supreme Court’s website on 25 October 2026.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Md. Mahbub Kabir, was initially appointed as a Deputy General Manager at B-R Powergen Limited on a contractual basis. He was subsequently promoted to the position of Chief Engineer and served as Project Director of the 150 MW power plant project at Mirsarai, Chattogram.

Following a dispute concerning the country of origin of the generator installed at the power plant, allegations of negligence, inefficiency and misconduct were brought against him. After a departmental inquiry, he was removed from service on 23 June 2020. His appeal against the removal was dismissed on 5 August 2020.

On 18 September 2024, the petitioner applied for reinstatement. On 13 November 2024, the Power Division directed the company to reconsider the matter. A committee formed for this purpose submitted a report on 13 March 2025 identifying significant irregularities in the dismissal process. However, those irregularities were not mentioned in a subsequent report. The company’s Board later decided that reinstatement was not possible.

Challenging the dismissal, the rejection of his appeal and the subsequent decision refusing reinstatement, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court Division.

Observations of the High Court

1. Writ Petition Maintainable Against a Government-Owned Company

The Court observed that the majority of shares in B-R Powergen Limited were held by the government and government-controlled entities. The company was involved in public electricity generation and performed functions connected with public interest.

Accordingly, where a company’s decisions involve elements of public law, violations of fundamental rights, lack of lawful authority, abuse of power or breaches of the principles of natural justice, those decisions may be subject to judicial review under Article 102 of the Constitution.

2. Denial of the Opportunity to Cross-Examine Witnesses Violated Natural Justice

The Court found that although the inquiry committee had received written statements from witnesses, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine them. In particular, the statements of the petitioner and the then Managing Director, Abdus Sabur, were contradictory. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to question the witnesses adversely affected his right to defend himself.

The Court further noted that the Managing Director who had raised the allegations against the petitioner also attended meetings of the Board that decided on the petitioner’s dismissal. This circumstance raised serious concerns regarding the impartiality and fairness of the decision-making process.

The Court therefore held that the dismissal order, being based on a defective inquiry, could not be legally sustained.

3. Rejection of the Appeal Was Also Unlawful

Under Rule 7.10(e) of the B-R Powergen Limited Employees Service Rules, 2016, the appellate authority was required to examine whether the evidence underlying the penalty had been established and whether the penalty was appropriate, inadequate or excessive.

The Court found that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal without properly considering the specific grounds raised by the petitioner, relying instead on the assertion that the inquiry procedure had been followed. The rejection of the appeal was therefore also unlawful.

4. Delay of Several Years Did Not Automatically Make the Writ Petition Unmaintainable

Although considerable time had passed since the dismissal and the petitioner had received certain employment-related financial benefits, the Court noted that the matter had subsequently been reconsidered at the direction of the Power Division.

The decision taken on 10 August 2025 following that reconsideration constituted a fresh and immediate cause of action for the writ petition. Therefore, the objection based on delay could not be considered in isolation from the subsequent developments.

5. Contractual Employment Did Not Automatically Bar Reinstatement

The Court observed that although the company’s service rules provided for contractual appointments, the contractual nature of employment did not automatically exclude the possibility of reinstatement.

Rule 7.4(b) of the Service Rules distinguished between removal from service and dismissal, while Rule 7.11 provided for reinstatement. The petitioner had been removed before the expiry of his contractual term.

As the removal order was found to be unlawful, the Court did not accept the contractual nature of the appointment or the subsequent expiry of the contract as an absolute bar to reinstatement.

Decision of the Court

In view of the above findings, the High Court Division made the Rule absolute. It set aside:

• The removal order dated 23 June 2020;

• The order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal dated 5 August 2020; and

• The decision dated 10 August 2025 refusing to grant reinstatement.

The Court directed the concerned respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. No order as to costs was made.

Legal Significance

The judgment highlights that an employee facing departmental proceedings must be given an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses where necessary for a fair defence. The participation of a complainant in the decision-making process may also raise concerns about impartiality.

An appellate authority must independently consider the relevant allegations and evidence and provide a reasoned decision. Furthermore, decisions of government-owned companies may be subject to judicial review where they involve elements of public law. Finally, contractual employment does not, by itself, automatically preclude reinstatement when the removal from service is found to be unlawful.

Case Details: Md. Mahbub Kabir v. Government of Bangladesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 13501 of 2025; Judgment dated 15 September 2026; High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

BD Law Post/Masum