Sharif Uddin gets ACC job back with seniority

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has withdrawn its order dismissing Md Sharif Uddin from the post of assistant director. He has also been reinstated in his job at the commission. As per the rules, he will be entitled to his seniority and all outstanding salaries and allowances.

The information was announced in a notification issued by the Anti-Corruption Commission today, Tuesday.

On 16 February 2022, the ACC dismissed Sharif Uddin, then assistant director at its Patuakhali office, from his job. Before being transferred to Patuakhali on 16 June 2021, Sharif had worked at the ACC's Chattogram office. At the time, he investigated irregularities in land acquisition for government projects and recommended filing cases against influential individuals. The then ACC official had also filed a general diary (GD) with the police, saying he had received death threats for carrying out his duties.

His dismissal sparked considerable discussion at the time. ACC employees also held a human chain in front of the commission's headquarters in protest against his dismissal.

The ACC order dismissing Sharif Uddin stated, “In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 54(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Employees) Service Rules, 2008, Md Sharif Uddin (Assistant Director), ACC, Integrated District Office, Patuakhali, is hereby dismissed from service. He will receive 90 days' salary and applicable benefits as per the rules.”

However, on 13 March 2022, Sharif filed a writ petition challenging the legality of Rule 54(2) of the ACC Employees Service Rules, which allows an employee to be dismissed without being given any opportunity to show cause. He also sought an order for his reinstatement.

During the hearing of the writ petition, the court was informed that an appeal filed by the ACC against a verdict concerning the dismissal of another commission official, Md Ahsan Ali, under Rule 54(2), was pending before the Appellate Division for hearing.

In this context, on 25 May 2022, the High Court adjourned the hearing of Sharif's writ petition challenging the legality of dismissal under Rule 54(2) until the disposal of the ACC's appeal.

Seeking a stay on that order, Sharif filed a leave-to-appeal petition (seeking permission to appeal) with the Appellate Division on 16 June 2022.

Sharif's leave-to-appeal petition was taken up for hearing alongside the ACC's appeal against the High Court verdict that had declared Rule 54(2) invalid in response to Md Ahsan Ali's writ petition.

On 16 March 2023, the Appellate Division allowed the ACC's appeal and delivered its verdict, setting aside the High Court ruling that had invalidated the provision. Sharif Uddin's leave-to-appeal petition against the High Court order was deemed unnecessary.

The full text of the Appellate Division verdict was published on 21 December 2023. The full verdict stated that Rule 54(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Employees) Service Rules must be applied with the utmost caution. Along with this observation, the ACC was asked to follow 12 observations or guidelines when applying the provision.

After the full text of the Appellate Division verdict was published, Sharif's writ petition was placed before the High Court for hearing.

Following the preliminary hearing, the High Court issued a rule on 6 February 2024. After the final hearing, the High Court delivered its verdict on 9 July last year.

In its verdict, the High Court declared the 16 February 2022 order dismissing Sharif Uddin from service to be without lawful authority and void from the outset.

The High Court ordered his reinstatement with seniority and all outstanding benefits. It directed the authorities to implement the order within 30 days of receiving a copy of the verdict. The High Court ruling paved the way for Sharif Uddin's reinstatement.

Last year, the ACC filed a leave-to-appeal petition (seeking permission to appeal) against the High Court verdict. The commission subsequently filed an application seeking to withdraw the civil leave-to-appeal petition.

Following this, the Appellate Division's Chamber Court issued an order on 15 October.

The order stated that the lawyer representing the applicant (Advocate-on-Record) had informed the court that he had received instructions not to proceed with the civil leave-to-appeal petition. In view of this statement, the leave-to-appeal petition was dismissed as not to proceed.