& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Govt, IGP both disregarded HC, rule of law

Writ petitioner challenging Shahudul's holding ojfice tells court

STAFF CORRESPONDENT
The government has shown blatant disrespect for the rule of law and the High Court (HC) by not removing Inspector General Police (IGP) Shahudul Haque after the court convicted him of contempt of court, said a writ petitioner challenging the validity of Haque's holding the office.
The IGP also disregarded the court by not standing down from his job, argued petitioner MK Rahman, a Supreme Court Lawyer, who filed the petition in the form of public interest litigation.
The hearing of the writ petition resumed yesterday, a day after the Supreme Court confirmed the
conviction ofthe police chief. '
In his daylong submission before the High Court yesterday, Rahman told a bench, "Every moment Shahudul Haque has served and operated as the IGP since the I ligh Court ruling convicting him of contempt of court on January 27 has been illegal."
"Neither did the IGP resign on his own, nor did the government sack him. It is a blatant sign of disrespect for die law and the highest court," he added.
On March 22, the HC issued a rule on (he government asking it to explain under what authority Shahudul has been holding the office of IGP after conviction by court. The hearing of the same case resumed on Wednesday after (he first hearing on November 24.
The High Court fined the IGP Tk 2,000, failure to pay which will land him in Jail for a month. He appealed against the verdict, but the Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed his petition and upheld the High Court verdict.
Referring (o the amount of the penalty slapped on the IGP petitioner Rahman yesterday told court that according to (he Public Servants (Dismissal on Conviction) Ordinance 1985, a public servant on his conviction of a criminal offence stands dismissed on the date of delivery of judgement nr order convicting him. But Shahudul continued to hold office.
The petitioner argued when a person being in charge of a lawenforcing agency, assigned to ensure the rule of law, is convicted and then he ignores the rule, it seriously affects die rule of lawand democracy.
Following the High Court rule, die government on April 1 gave Shahudul a year's service extension on contract. MK Rahman observed that through this, the government has shown disrespect to the court and that it, along with the IGR has violated Article 112 ofthe constitution.
Advocate Ruhui Kuddus Babu and Advocate Reazuddin Khan Reza made their submissions on behalf of the petitioner. The court adjourned die hearing until 2:00pm Saturday.