In any constitutional democracy committed to the rule of law, the accountability of public officials—especially those entrusted with coercive state power—is non‑negotiable. Bangladesh, since its rebirth in 1971, has enshrined the supremacy of the Constitution, but the gap between parchment principles and lived reality remains cavernous. Recent disciplinary proceedings against a senior police officer, Mohammad Mizanur Rahman (BPA‑790640023), former Additional Police Superintendent of Dinajpur and later Deputy Police Commissioner in Gazipur, offer a sobering case study. While the government machinery did initiate departmental action for alleged financial corruption, a closer examination through the foundational pillars of the rule of law—legal supremacy, equality before the law, fairness, transparency, accountability, and protection of fundamental rights—reveals deep structural fragilities. This article argues that without robust, independent, and transparent accountability mechanisms, such disciplinary actions risk becoming performative rituals that erode public trust rather than restore justice.
I. The Case in Focus: Allegations, Inquiry & Sanction
According to an official order from the Public Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs (Memo No. 88.00.0000.00.08.002.003.20.200), SP Mohammad Mizanur Rahman faced accusations of serious financial impropriety during his tenure in Dinajpur. The allegations included channeling suspicious monetary transactions—specifically “Cash In” of 11,12,130 Taka (eleven lakh twelve thousand one hundred thirty) and “Sent Money” amounting to 9,28,060 Taka (nine lakh twenty-eight thousand sixty)—through mobile financial services linked to his own and his personal security guard’s numbers. Further, it was alleged that he used his official and personal mobile phones for irregular airtime top‑ups, collected and transferred extorted money from local individuals, and directed subordinates to pay certain complainants from suspicious accounts. An inquiry was initiated, followed by a show‑cause notice (09 June 2021), a personal hearing (22 November 2021), and a full investigation by an inquiry officer, Additional DIG Md. Walid Hossain. The inquiry report, submitted on 29 April 2023, found the charges substantiated. Consequently, under Rule 3(খ) & 3(ছ) (misconduct and corruption) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018, the authority imposed a penalty of withholding of annual increment for one year without future restoration. No criminal case was filed, nor was any recovery or dismissal ordered.
“জনাব মোঃ মিজানুর রহমান পিপিএম-সেবা, (বিপি-৭৯০৬১৪০০২৩), উপ-পুলিশ কমিশনার, জিএমপি, গাজীপুর এর বিরুদ্ধে ইতোপূর্বে অতিরিক্ত পুলিশ সুপার, দিনাজপুর হিসেবে কর্মকালে জনাব মোঃ মিলন, পিতা-মৃত এলাহী তালুকদার, বোচাগঞ্জ দিনাজপুর এর নামে উত্তোলিত বিকাশ একাউন্টভুক্ত মোবাইল নম্বর ০১৭৬৭-২০৬৯৭৯ উদ্দেশ্য প্রণোদিতভাবে নিজে ব্যবহার করে জুয়াড়ীদের নিকট হতে বিভিন্ন সময়ে অবৈধভাবে টাকা সংগ্রহ ও স্থানান্তর করার অভিযোগ উত্থাপিত হওয়ায় পুলিশ অধিদপ্তর কর্তৃক বিষয়টি অনুসন্ধান করানো হয়। প্রাথমিক অনুসন্ধানকালে দাখিলকৃত প্রতিবেদনে অভিযুক্ত কর্মকর্তার বিরুদ্ধে আনীত অভিযোগে ১১,১২,৯৩০/- (এগার লক্ষ বার হাজার নয়শত ত্রিশ) টাকা Cash In এবং ৯,২৪,৬৯৪/- (নয় লক্ষ চব্বিশ হাজার ছয়শত চুরানব্বই) টাকা Sent Money করা হয়েছে। যা তার দেহরক্ষী মোঃ হাসান আলীসহ বিভিন্ন মাধ্যম দিয়ে উত্তোলন এবং স্থানান্তরের অভিযোগে গত ০৭-০৬-২০২১ তারিখে তাকে কারণ দর্শানো হয়। তপ্রেক্ষিতে তিনি গত ০৮-০৭-২০২১ তারিখে কারণ দর্শানোর জবাব দাখিলপূর্বক ব্যক্তিগত শুনানির আবেদন জানান। ০২। অভিযুক্ত কর্মকর্তার আবেদনের পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে গত ২২-১১-২০২১ তারিখে তার বিরুদ্ধে রুজুকৃত বিভাগীয় মামলায় ব্যক্তিগত শুনানি অনুষ্ঠিত হয়। পরবর্তীতে তার বিরুদ্ধে আনীত অভিযোগসমূহের তদন্ত হওয়া প্রয়োজন মর্মে প্রতীয়মান হওয়ায় গত ২০-০১-২০২২ তারিখ জনাব মোঃ ওয়ালিদ হোসেন (বিপি-৭০১০০৭০১২০), অতিরিক্ত ডিআইজি, রংপুর রেঞ্জ, রংপুর-কে তদন্তকারী কর্মকর্তা হিসেবে নিয়োগ করা হয়। ০৩। তদন্তকারী কর্মকর্তা জনাব মোঃ ওয়ালিদ হোসেন (বিপি-৭০১০০৭০১২০), অতিরিক্ত ডিআইজি, রংপুর রেঞ্জ, রংপুর-কে শেষে ২৯-০৫-২০২২ তারিখ ৩৪৬ নং স্মারকে তদন্ত প্রতিবেদন দাখিল করেন। উক্ত তদন্ত প্রতিবেদনে জনাব মোঃ মিজানুর রহমান পিপিএম-সেবা, (বিপি-৭৯০৬১৪০০২৩), উপ-পুলিশ কমিশনার, জিএমপি, গাজীপুর-এর বিরুদ্ধে গত ৩০-০৩-২০১৬ তারিখ হতে ৩১-১২-২০১৮ তারিখ পর্যন্ত সময়ে বিতর্কিত ০১৭৬৭-২০৬৯৭৯ মোবাইল নম্বরে ১১,১২,৯৩০/- (এগার লক্ষ বার হাজার নয়শত ত্রিশ) টাকা Cash In এবং ৯,২৪,৬৯৪/- (নয় লক্ষ চব্বিশ হাজার ছয়শত চুরানব্বই) টাকা Sent Money করা, তার নিজের ব্যক্তিগত ও সরকারি মোবাইল ফোনে একাধিকবার Airtime Topup করা, তার অবস্থান ও বিতর্কিত মোবাইল নম্বর অবস্থান একই হওয়া, সংগৃহীত টাকাগুলো জুয়াড়ীদের নিকট হতে অবৈধভাবে সংগ্রহ ও হস্তান্তর করা, বিতর্কিত মোবাইল নম্বর হতে সাদিয়া এভিয়েশন বিমানের টিকিটের টাকা পরিশোধ করার অভিযোগ সন্দেহাতীতভাবে প্রমাণিত মর্মে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। এর পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে গত ২৬-০৯-২০২২ তারিখ ১৫৩ নং স্মারকে তাকে দ্বিতীয় কারণ দর্শানো হয় এবং এর প্রেক্ষিতে তিনি ০৬-১০-২০২২ তারিখ ৭২৩ নম্বর স্মারকে জবাব দাখিল করেন। ০৪। এমতাবস্থায়, জনাব মোঃ মিজানুর রহমান পিপিএম-সেবা, (বিপি-৭৯০৬১৪০০২৩), উপ-পুলিশ কমিশনার, জিএমপি, গাজীপুর ও সাবেক অতিরিক্ত পুলিশ সুপার, দিনাজপুর-এর বিরুদ্ধে আনীত অভিযোগে তার লিখিত জবাব, ব্যক্তিগত শুনানিতে উভয়পক্ষের বক্তব্য, প্রাসঙ্গিক দলিলপত্রাদি, তদন্ত প্রতিবেদন এবং অপরাধের প্রকৃতি ও মাত্রা বিবেচনায় বিরুদ্ধে সরকারি কর্মচারী (শৃঙ্খলা ও আপিল) বিধিমালা, ২০১৮ এর ৩(খ) ও ৩(ঘ) বিধি অনুযায়ী ‘অসদাচরণ’ ও ‘দুর্নীতিপরায়ণ’-এর অভিযোগ প্রমাণিত হওয়ায় একই বিধিমালার ৪(২) উপবিধি (১)(খ) উপবিধি অনুযায়ী তাকে পরবর্তী ১ বছরের জন্য “বার্ষিক বেতন বৃদ্ধি স্থগিতকরণ”-এর দণ্ড প্রদান করা হলো। একইসাথে তার স্থগিতকৃত বেতন বৃদ্ধি ভবিষ্যতে বেতন থেকে সমন্বয় করা হবে না।”
(Translation: Allegations were raised against Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman PPM-Seba (BP-7906140023), Deputy Commissioner of Police, GMP, Gazipur, regarding his previous tenure as Additional Superintendent of Police, Dinajpur. The allegations stated that he intentionally used a bKash account (Mobile No. 01767-206979) registered under the name of Mr. Md. Milan (son of late Elahi Talukdar, Bochaganj, Dinajpur) to illegally collect and transfer money from gamblers at various times. Consequently, the Police Headquarters initiated an inquiry. According to the preliminary inquiry report, the accused officer was charged with performing 'Cash In' transactions worth 1,112,930/- (Eleven lac twelve thousand nine hundred thirty) BDT and 'Sent Money' transactions worth 9,24,694/- (Nine lac twenty-four thousand six hundred ninety-four) BDT. On 07-06-2021, a Show Cause notice was issued to him regarding the withdrawal and transfer of these funds through various channels, including his bodyguard, Md. Hasan Ali. In response, on 08-07-2021, he submitted a written reply and requested a personal hearing. 02. In view of the accused officer’s application, a personal hearing regarding the departmental case filed against him was held on 22-11-2021. Subsequently, as it appeared necessary to further investigate the allegations, Mr. Md. Walid Hossain (BP-7010070120), Additional DIG, Rangpur Range, Rangpur, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer on 20-01-2022. 03. The Inquiry Officer, Mr. Md. Walid Hossain, submitted the final investigation report via memo no. 346 on 29-05-2022. The report stated that the allegations against Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman—including the 'Cash In' of 1,112,930/- BDT and 'Sent Money' of 9,24,694/- BDT through the disputed mobile number between 30-03-2016 and 31-12-2018, multiple Airtime Top-ups on his personal and official phones, the identical location tracking of his person and the disputed mobile number, the illegal collection and transfer of funds from gamblers, and the payment for air tickets from 'Sadia Aviation' using the disputed number—have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, a second Show Cause notice was issued via memo no. 153 on 26-09-2022, to which he submitted a reply via memo no. 723 on 06-10-2022. 04. Under the circumstances, upon considering the written reply of Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman, the statements provided during the personal hearing, relevant documents, the investigation report, and the nature and gravity of the offense, the charges of "Misconduct" and "Corruption" under Rules 3(b) and 3(d) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018, have been proven. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 4(2), Sub-rule (1)(b) of the said rules, he is hereby awarded the penalty of "Withholding of annual increment" for the next 1 (one) year. Furthermore, the withheld increment shall not be adjusted or recovered from his salary in the future..)
II. Analysing the Current State: Disciplinary Islam vs. Criminal Impunity
Bangladesh has witnessed a proliferation of departmental inquiries against public servants in recent years, often hailed as evidence of a functioning accountability architecture. However, the Mizanur Rahman episode illustrates a recurring trend: serious allegations of corruption—amounting to nearly 20 lakh Taka in questionable transactions—result in a relatively mild administrative penalty. Withholding one year’s increment barely equates to a few thousand taka in effective financial impact, and it does not address the core element of public corruption: the abuse of office for private gain, and the potential loss to the state exchequer or citizens who were extorted. Under the rule of law, corruption is not merely a disciplinary infraction; it is a criminal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (as applied in Bangladesh) and the Money Laundering Prevention Act. Yet, no reference to any parallel criminal investigation appears in the order. The absence of prosecution sends a dangerous signal that police officers—those tasked with upholding the law—can buy their way out with only a symbolic freeze on annual increments.
III. Critical Evaluation Through Rule of Law Principles
To dissect the integrity of the process and its outcome, we must place the case against the five foundational pillars of the rule of law as recognised by the UN, the Venice Commission, and all mature democracies.
🔹 Legal Supremacy
The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018, were ostensibly followed: show‑cause, inquiry officer appointment, hearing, and reasoned order. That is procedurally correct on paper. Yet, legal supremacy demands that no one is above the law—including the same police hierarchy that investigates its own. The inquiry officer was an incumbent police officer (Additional DIG, Rangpur Range), which raises concerns about institutional independence. Under binding principles, those adjudicating disciplinary matters should be free from command influence. The investigating officer served in the same police structure; in effect, the police investigated one of their own, reported to the Home Ministry (which oversees police), and the penalty was approved by the same ministry. This lacks the external, impartial oversight required for genuine legal supremacy.
🔹 Equality Before the Law
Would a similarly situated junior official or a civilian face the same treatment? For a government employee who misappropriates or extorts nearly BDT 20 lakh, the standard legal route would involve arrest, criminal trial, and potential imprisonment. Yet, the officer in question retained his position, continues to serve (the order notes "future increment withheld" but no dismissal or reduction in rank). This unequal application suggests that high‑ranking police officials benefit from a protective shield, violating the core principle that the law’s sword must cut equally.
🔹 Fairness in Application
The officer was given opportunities to respond—a personal hearing on 22 November 2021 and a written representation. That satisfies basic procedural fairness. However, the fairness of the inquiry itself is tainted by the lack of public access to evidence and the inability of citizens or anti‑corruption watchdogs to scrutinise the inquiry report (38 No. inquiry report is mentioned but not made publicly available). Rule of law demands not just formal fairness but also transparent adjudication. In this case, the victimised citizens (those who allegedly paid extortion money) were never parties to the proceeding; no restitution was ordered. Fairness must extend to the affected public, not merely the accused officer.
🔹 Accountability and Transparency
The order itself is a government document obtained possibly through right to information or leaks, but it was not proactively published. Accountability mechanisms are strongest when decisions are open to public scrutiny. Moreover, the penalty’s nature (withholding increment) lacks deterrence. Accountability should include recovery of ill‑gotten gains, referral to the Anti‑Corruption Commission (ACC), and disciplinary removal for gross misconduct. Transparency is further crippled by the absence of a whistleblower protection framework, which discourages subordinates or victims from reporting corrupt superiors.
🔹 Protection of Fundamental Rights
The rule of law safeguards both the accused’s rights (right to a fair hearing) and citizens’ rights (right to be free from extortion, right to an honest administration). Here, the fundamental rights of the potential victims—whose money was allegedly extorted and channelled through mobile banking—remain unprotected. No order of restitution or compensation is recorded. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that states have a positive duty to investigate corruption effectively. Bangladesh’s Constitution under Article 21 mandates that “every person in the service of the Republic shall render honest and faithful service.” When senior officers violate this, and the state responds with a minor administrative wrist‑slap, it fails its duty to protect citizens’ rights to dignity, property, and good governance.
IV. The Media Dimension: Zulkarnain Saer & Investigative Journalism as a Watchdog
Alongside official documents, the role of independent journalists such as Zulkarnain Saer (producer at Al Jazeera’s I-Unit, with a track record of exposing governance failures) is central to rule of law. While this particular case may not be directly linked to Saer’s reporting, the mere fact that such orders become subject to public discussion is often due to investigative journalists and human rights defenders who risk reprisal to shine light on opaque disciplinary systems. Without a free, vibrant media, the public cannot hold the executive accountable. The rule of law thrives only when there is an informed citizenry, and journalists act as the “fourth estate.” The government must not only tolerate but actively protect such scrutiny. Any attempt to curb media freedom or intimidate journalists erodes the very fabric of legal accountability.
V. Actionable Recommendations for Strengthening the Rule of Law
Based on the gap analysis above, I propose the following key reforms targeting policymakers, the judiciary, the Anti‑Corruption Commission (ACC), civil society, and international partners:
VI. Conclusion: Beyond Symbolism – The Indispensable Imperative
The disciplinary proceeding against SP Mohammad Mizanur Rahman is not an isolated anomaly; it is a symptom of a deeper governance pathology where accountability is reduced to box‑ticking. The rule of law is not about the mere existence of rules—it is about their consistent, impartial, and effective enforcement. When a senior police officer is found to have engaged in extortion and financial irregularities, and the only consequence is a temporary block on annual increment, the state sends an unmistakable message to every corrupt official: “Take risks, because the worst that can happen is a small delay in your salary rise.”
Bangladesh has made remarkable economic strides, but sustainable development is impossible without a robust rule‑of‑law culture. As Edmund Burke wrote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” But here, it is not inaction—it is the active creation of a parallel, lenient track for powerful wrongdoers that discredits the entire legal order. The path forward demands courage from the judiciary, integrity from the Anti‑Corruption Commission, vigilance from civil society, and political will from the executive to hold its own officials genuinely accountable. Without that, every claim to uphold the rule of law remains hollow, and every citizen’s fundamental right to justice remains a distant promise.
Let this case be a turning point, not another footnote in impunity’s long chapter. We demand—and the rule of law requires—a transparent, proportionate, and deterrent response to corruption in public office. The future of Bangladesh’s democracy depends on it.