IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 27 of 2020 In the matter of:

An application under article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

AND

In the matter of:

Manzu Monowara, wife of Md. Shabbir Ahamed, Senior Assistant Secretary (Research Wing), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Bangladesh, resident of Flat-A-3, House No. 27, Road No. 8, Sector-10, Uttara, Dhaka-1230.

………… Petitioner. -Versus-

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Segunbagicha, Dhaka and others

......... Respondents.

Mr. Jyotirmoy Barua, Advocate

.......For the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Aminuddin, Attorney General with Mr. Muhammad Rafiul Islam, Advocate

......For the respondent Nos.1 and 8. Mr. Bepul Bagmar, D.A.G

........For the respondent No. Judgment on: 30.08.2023

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Khasruzzaman

And

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

Md. Khasruzzmaman, J:

In the application under article 102 of the Constitution, on 05.01.2020 the Rule Nisi under adjudication was issued in the following terms:

“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned inaction of the respondents in not taking punitive action against the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 9 based on the inquiry report of the Complaint Committee should not be declared illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”

Facts necessary for disposal of the Rule Nisi, in short, are that on 30.11.2008 the petitioner joined in the post of Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Subsequently, on 15.11.2012 she was posted as Second Secretary in the Bangladesh Embassy, Tokyo, Japan. The respondent No.9 namely, Nur-E-Alam was also posted as Councilor (Political) in the Bangladesh Emabssy, Tokyo, Japan in June 2013 and since then he started harassing the petitioner randomly amongst other, seeking sexual favour indirectly using indicative languages which are covered by the definition given by the High Court Division in Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 29 BLD (HCD) 415. In 2015 when the sexual harassment and mental torture were being done by respondent No.9, then the petitioner was pregnant. On 12.06.2015 respondent No.9, Nur-E Alam, threatened her to kick out if she did not respond to his order, and it was informed the then Ambassador of Bangladesh Embassy, Tokyo, Japan from time to time by the petitioner, but no action was taken to resolve the matter, nor any investigation was carried out on the allegation made against the respondent No.9. However, the petitioner was advised by her doctor to take bed rest as at that time she was pregnant. But she was not allowed to go on leave as a part

of harassment, rather she was asked to submit ultra sonogram report for nine times to prove her pregnancy. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted ultra-sonogram reports of different dates. Even then she was not allowed to go on leave. Due to severe mental pressure by the respondent No.9 and his associates, the fetus in her womb stopped heartbeat, and as such, on 19.07.2015 the petitioner was diagnosed and found miscarriage. Subsequently, the petitioner got post-facto approval of earned leave after her miscarriage at the 14th week of her pregnancy (Annexures- B to B- 11).

In the meantime, the petitioner was tran