A Government Employee in Patuakhali has been accused of taking Tk 60 lakh in bribes in exchange for allegedly facilitating the release of Tk 1,31,37,137 in land acquisition compensation. The allegation led to a criminal case, which was later withdrawn following assurances of a settlement. When the settlement allegedly failed to materialise, the complainant filed a second case, which was also subsequently withdrawn following another settlement.
Despite the two criminal cases over the allegation, no administrative or departmental inquiry has reportedly been initiated against the accused government employee.
The allegations centre on Md Khalid Hossain, a head assistant at the Patuakhali District Administration’s LA Branch. Two cases filed by Md Mosharaf Sardar contain allegations that Khalid took three signed cheques from him and that Tk 60 lakh was subsequently withdrawn from his bank account using those cheques.
Despite the two rounds of criminal proceedings, there appears to have been no visible administrative action to remove Khalid from his LA Branch duties or initiate a departmental inquiry into the allegations.
This raises a fundamental question: why was no administrative investigation initiated after two criminal cases were filed against a government employee over an alleged financial transaction linked to his official responsibilities?
In the complaint filed in the second case, Mosharaf alleged that he was entitled to Tk 1,31,37,137 as compensation for land acquired in Laluya mouza.
According to the complaint, Khalid, who was then serving as a head assistant in the LA Branch, allegedly took three signed cheques from Mosharaf on the assurance that he would facilitate the release of the compensation money.
The complaint identifies the cheque numbers and alleges that a total of Tk 60 lakh was subsequently withdrawn from Mosharaf’s bank account using the cheques.
The case documents also refer to the dates of the alleged withdrawals and the relevant banking transactions. Mosharaf further claimed that CCTV footage from the bank could help identify the individuals who collected the money.
If verified, the allegations could therefore be examined through documentary and electronic evidence, including the original cheques, bank statements, withdrawal records, transaction vouchers and CCTV footage.
The key question, however, is whether any such evidence was ever examined administratively. Mosharaf initially filed Criminal Case No. 1014/2026 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code.
According to the case records, an attempt was subsequently made to resolve the dispute through mediation involving local influential persons. The complainant then applied for withdrawal of the case.
The court dismissed the case on the basis of the complainant’s application and sworn statement. However, the dispute did not end there.
In the complaint filed in the second case, Mosharaf alleged that he had been assured of a settlement before withdrawing the first case. He claimed that he was told that the accused side would not participate in a settlement unless the case was withdrawn.
According to his account, the promised settlement was not implemented after the first case was withdrawn. He subsequently filed a second case-Criminal Case No. 1099/2026-over the same underlying dispute.
Thus, the withdrawal of the first case did not conclusively resolve the allegations; instead, the complainant returned to court with a second case.
The second case, too, eventually ended with another settlement attempt.
Court records contain an application by the complainant seeking withdrawal of the case and refer to an amicable settlement at the local level.
As a result, the same dispute produced two rounds of criminal proceedings and two withdrawals following settlement efforts.
But one central question remains unanswered: Who actually withdrew the Tk 60 lakh?
A review of the two case records raises another significant issue: there is no visible record of an administrative inquiry into the financial allegations.
If the allegation that Tk 60 lakh was withdrawn through three cheques is accurate, bank records could potentially establish who presented the cheques, when they were presented and who received the money.
CCTV footage, if still available, could provide further evidence.
The LA Branch’s official records could also establish how Mosharaf’s compensation of Tk 1,31,37,137 was assessed, who was involved in processing the payment and whether Khalid’s official duties had any connection with the compensation process.
These are matters that could be established through documents and institutional records rather than speculation.
Yet no information has emerged indicating that such an administrative investigation was conducted.
The issue therefore goes beyond a private dispute between two individuals.
The allegations involve a government employee and, according to the complainant, relate to the exercise of his official position in connection with a land acquisition compensation claim.
The filing of a criminal case does not establish guilt. Likewise, withdrawal of a case does not, by itself, establish innocence.
However, where a government employee faces repeated criminal allegations involving specific financial transactions, the relevant authority would ordinarily be expected to determine whether the allegations have any bearing on official duties and whether departmental action is warranted.
If an inquiry was conducted, the findings and the basis for any decision to clear the employee should be available on record.
If no inquiry was conducted, the reason for that decision also warrants explanation.
Questions have also been raised over whether the matter was effectively buried through repeated local settlements instead of being independently examined by the administration.
Such allegations, however, require verification through official records and statements from the relevant authorities.
The Patuakhali District Administration, the LA Branch and the officials responsible for supervising Khalid’s work should clarify whether any departmental inquiry was ordered, whether any preliminary verification was conducted and whether any decision was taken regarding the allegations.
The sequence of events is significant: an allegation of Tk 60 lakh, a first criminal case, an attempted settlement, withdrawal of the case, a second criminal case over the same dispute, another settlement and withdrawal-and apparently no visible administrative inquiry.
The central question is therefore not simply why the cases were withdrawn.
It is whether the underlying allegations were ever independently investigated.
When contacted about the allegations, Md Khalid Hossain denied any involvement.
“I do not know who filed the case against me or who withdrew it. However, I have no involvement in the incident,” he said.
When contacted by phone for his comments, Patuakhali Deputy Commissioner Dr. Mohammad Shahid Hossain Chowdhury said, “I am currently on leave. Please speak to Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Mohsin Uddin.”
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Mohsin Uddin said he was unaware of any such incident. “If any complaint is received against him, it will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken,” he said.
Barishal Divisional Commissioner (Additional Secretary) Khalil Ahmed said, “How long has he been serving in that position? Also, what cases have been filed against him? Please send me the relevant documents via WhatsApp. I will review them and take necessary action.”