ACC doesn’t need to show reasons to sack its employees

The Supreme Court has issued 12 observations and guidelines for the Anti-Corruption Commission over terminating officials without showing any reason under the relevant rule.

The ACC can sack an employee by giving a 90-day notice or paying 90 days' salary, according to rule 54(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Employees) Service Rules 2008.

In the 47-page full text of the judgment, the apex court has justified the provisions of the rule and expects the authorities to exercise the powers under the rule with utmost care and caution so that no one is victimised.

However, former deputy assistant director of ACC Sharif Uddin, who was terminated from service on February 16, 2021 under this rule, cannot get his job back following the apex court judgement, ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan told The Daily Star.

"An employee should not be terminated by using Rule 54(2) as a tool in the grab of a constructive dismissal," said the seven-member bench of the Appellate Division led by then chief justice Hasan Foez Siddique.

The other six judges are Justice Md Nuruzzaman (now retired), Justice Obaidul Hassan (now chief justice), Justice Borhanuddin, Justice M Enayetur Rahim, Justice Md Asfaqul Islam and Justice Md Abu Zafor Siddique.

Earlier on March 16, the same bench delivered a short verdict on an appeal filed by the ACC challenging a High Court judgement that scrapped Rule 54(2) in 2011.

"Selection for termination under Rule 54(2) shall be made fairly and justly, without any pick and choose, without any bias, without any discrimination under the mandate of the constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The parameters of such termination have to be set in accordance with the equality provision of the constitution," the SC said.

An ACC employee usually works with serious cases of corruption and misappropriation of power and position committed by the most powerful stakeholders of the country, including the most powerful businessmen, politicians of the country and bureaucrats of the government.

While exercising the power of termination must remain careful that nobody is victimised at the behest of high-ups.

"The service of an employee of a statutory corporation, public body, national enterprise etc is not like that of a master and servant; rather, the tenure of service and other terms and conditions are based on the relevant statute and the service regulations. The extraordinary power to terminate any employee with three months' notice or pay in lieu of who has served a long time is always discouraged."

The case of every employee is required to be dealt with on merit by the authorities concerned before they decide to terminate anybody from his job.

"Since the law empowers the authorities with such extraordinary weapon, it should be used only in an extraordinary situation and as a last resort, on consideration of individual merit of each and every case and not otherwise. Without assigning any reason as envisaged in Rule 54(2) does not mean without having any reasons."

The reason for termination must be stated in the note sheet.

"No employee should be terminated from their service against whom any departmental proceedings have already been initiated and pending with specific charges. In that situation, the authority must conclude the proceedings and punish the accused if any employee is found guilty. Not any other matter," the SC said in the full verdict.