Bangladesh dismisses former DB chief Harun and six other police officers, orders one into retirement

Eight officers face penalties under government service rules

Bangladesh has dismissed seven police officers, including former Dhaka Metropolitan Police Detective Branch chief Mohammad Harun-or-Rashid, and ordered another into compulsory retirement. The Home Ministry announced the decisions on October 31, 2026, with dismissal dates reaching back to March 2018.

Harun, who last served as additional commissioner for Crime and Operations at Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP), was dismissed with effect from August 6, 2024. The ministry said he had remained absent without permission from that date and had failed to respond to repeated attempts to contact him.

The other six dismissed officers are Md Anisur Rahman, Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee, Tarek Bin Rashid, SM Jahangir Hasan, Farhana Taskin and Md Moniruzzaman Sarkar. Kazi Mizanur Rahman was sent into compulsory retirement after a departmental investigation upheld a misconduct allegation involving an extramarital relationship.

The eight disciplinary decisions followed investigations under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018, consultation with the Bangladesh Public Service Commission (PSC) and presidential approval. Home Ministry Senior Secretary Manzur Morshed Chowdhury signed the notifications on behalf of the president.

The cases cover different circumstances: officers who failed to return from foreign travel or study, officers who cited illness or rest but did not resume duty, and an officer whose resignation was rejected. Two dismissals date from absences beginning in 2018 and 2019, while the other five take effect from dates in 2024 and 2025. Together, the orders close disciplinary proceedings involving several ranks and postings across the police.

Why Harun was dismissed

Harun held the rank of deputy inspector general while serving as a DMP additional commissioner. He had previously led the Detective Branch, the metropolitan police unit responsible for detective work and criminal investigations.

The ministry said his absence began on August 6, 2024, without permission from the appropriate authority. Officials tried to contact him at his current and permanent addresses and by email, but he did not return to work.

Police Headquarters then wrote to the Home Ministry requesting departmental action. Proceedings began on April 15, 2026. Harun did not submit a written response to the initial notice asking him to explain his absence, and he did not request more time.

An inquiry officer appointed on June 22 submitted a report on August 6. The investigation found the charge of desertion established under Rule 3(c) of the 2018 rules. In this employment process, desertion means abandoning duty without authorisation.

Harun also failed to answer a second notice issued on August 20. The PSC recommended dismissal on October 1, and the president approved the decision on October 25. Harun had been under suspension before the final dismissal.

The steps from absence to dismissal

Harun's case separates the date his absence began from the dates on which officials investigated and approved the penalty. His dismissal was announced in October 2026 but made effective from August 2024.

The ministry's account sets out the following sequence:

• August 6, 2024: Harun began remaining absent without permission, the date from which his dismissal takes effect.
• April 15, 2026: Departmental proceedings began following a request from Police Headquarters.
• June 22, 2026: An inquiry officer was appointed.
• August 6, 2026: The inquiry report was submitted.
• August 20, 2026: A second notice sought his explanation.
• October 1, 2026: The PSC recommended dismissal.
• October 25, 2026: The president approved the decision.
• October 31, 2026: The ministry announced the disciplinary action.

A notice seeking an explanation gives an employee an opportunity to answer allegations before a penalty is imposed. In Harun's case, the ministry recorded no response to either notice.

Farhana Taskin's case began with leave to Canada

Farhana Taskin, a former assistant commissioner in DMP's Administration-Traffic North division, travelled to Canada on February 15, 2018, on 42 days of leave to visit her husband.

She later requested another 36 days, citing illness, and applied for study leave to take an accounting course lasting three years at a Canadian institution. The Home Ministry rejected the study application and instructed her to return to Bangladesh and resume duty.

The disciplinary notification said she failed to report for work on March 28, 2018, when she was required to return. A departmental case was opened on February 17, 2025, nearly seven years after the absence began.

The investigation upheld the desertion charge. Farhana also failed to respond to a second notice seeking an explanation. Following PSC advice and presidential approval, her dismissal was made effective from March 28, 2018, the earliest effective date among the seven dismissals.

Moniruzzaman Sarkar did not return after study leave

Md Moniruzzaman Sarkar, another former DMP assistant commissioner, went to the United Kingdom in 2012 to pursue a PhD in criminology at Kingston University. Criminology is the study of crime, its causes and how societies respond to it.

His authorised absence continued through several extensions, including unpaid leave from October 19, 2017, to June 30, 2019. He then sought a further two years, covering July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021.

The Home Ministry rejected that request and directed him to return to Bangladesh and rejoin his workplace. He remained abroad instead, according to the disciplinary findings.

A departmental case began on October 5, 2020. Investigators upheld charges of misconduct and desertion, and he failed to answer a second notice seeking an explanation. His dismissal takes effect from July 1, 2019, immediately after the final period of approved leave ended.

Farhana and Moniruzzaman both initially travelled with permission. Their disciplinary cases centred on their failure to resume duty after authorised leave ended and after the ministry instructed them to return.

Two senior officers cited rest or illness

Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee, formerly an additional deputy inspector general with the Tourist Police, was attached to the Rajshahi Range DIG's office on January 1, 2025. The more detailed departmental account says he reported there on January 22 and submitted a departure report that day seeking three weeks of rest.

He did not return after that period. Proceedings began on July 3, 2025, and the investigation upheld the desertion charge. His dismissal takes effect from January 22, 2025. The central finding was his continued absence after the period of rest he had requested.

Md Anisur Rahman, a former Rajshahi Range DIG, had been attached to the River Police and joined that unit on August 27, 2024. On February 17, 2025, he submitted a report citing illness.

The ministry said his report did not specify the type or duration of leave or where he was staying. He also failed to provide the required supporting documents and did not return despite repeated notices.

An investigation upheld both misconduct and desertion charges against Anisur. His dismissal takes effect from February 17, 2025. His case centred on the incomplete leave report, missing documents and continued failure to report for duty.

Rejected leave and resignation requests preceded two dismissals

SM Jahangir Hasan, a former additional superintendent in the Tangail region of the River Police, left on October 8, 2024, after receiving 15 days of leave to travel abroad.

He subsequently sought an extension of 60 days. Authorities rejected the request, but he did not return to work. A departmental investigation upheld the desertion allegation, and his dismissal takes effect from October 23, 2024.

Tarek Bin Rashid, formerly superintendent of police in Lakshmipur and later attached to the Bangladesh Police Academy in Sardah, took 15 days of rest and recreation leave beginning November 2, 2024. He was due to return on November 17.

During his leave, Tarek cited illness and took 21 days of rest on medical advice from the Rajarbagh Central Police Hospital. He sent a prescription to the academy but did not resume duty. Attempts to reach him at his known address and by email received no response, according to the departmental account.

Tarek later submitted a resignation letter citing personal reasons. Authorities rejected it. Investigators upheld misconduct and desertion charges under Rules 3(b) and 3(c), and his dismissal takes effect from November 17, 2024.

For Jahangir, the requested extension never became approved leave. For Tarek, the rejected resignation left his employment obligations in place. Both cases ended with dismissal after investigators examined the continued absences.

Why Kazi Mizanur Rahman received compulsory retirement

Kazi Mizanur Rahman's case concerned personal conduct rather than prolonged absence. He was serving as an assistant superintendent in the Criminal Investigation Department in Dinajpur and had previously worked as an assistant commissioner in DMP's Tejgaon Traffic Zone.

The departmental allegation concerned an extramarital relationship with the wife of a Barishal Metropolitan Police constable. The case records said he became acquainted with her through Facebook in April 2022.

A summary of those records referred to court observations describing the relationship as consensual. The departmental investigation found that his conduct had damaged the reputation of the police force and upheld a misconduct charge under Rule 3(b).

Following PSC advice and presidential approval, authorities ordered compulsory retirement, with the order dated October 25. Compulsory retirement means an employer requires an officer to leave service rather than allowing the officer to choose when to retire. It was the penalty selected for Mizanur, while the other seven officers received dismissal orders.

What the effective dates change

The ministry attached an earlier effective date to each dismissal. Farhana's order reaches back to March 28, 2018; Moniruzzaman's to July 1, 2019; and the remaining five to dates between August 6, 2024, and February 17, 2025.

Five of the seven dismissals, about 71%, therefore concern absences beginning in 2024 or 2025. The other two arose from much older periods abroad. Farhana's effective dismissal date is more than eight years before the October 2026 announcement.

The dates show that the disciplinary decisions bring together cases that began years apart. Farhana's departmental case opened in February 2025, while Moniruzzaman's began in October 2020. Harun's proceedings started in April 2026.

The announcements do not give a financial breakdown of how the earlier effective dates will affect pay, pensions or other service benefits. They also give no next hearing date or deadline for further proceedings. The immediate employment outcome is seven dismissals and one compulsory retirement, following the investigations, PSC consultation and presidential approval.

Key Points

• The Home Ministry announced seven police dismissals and one compulsory retirement on October 31, 2026.
• Former Detective Branch chief Mohammad Harun-or-Rashid was dismissed with effect from August 6, 2024, for unauthorised absence.
• The other dismissed officers are Anisur Rahman, Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee, Tarek Bin Rashid, Jahangir Hasan, Farhana Taskin and Moniruzzaman Sarkar.
• Farhana's dismissal dates from March 28, 2018, and Moniruzzaman's from July 1, 2019, after they failed to return from leave abroad.
• Kazi Mizanur Rahman received compulsory retirement after an investigation upheld a misconduct allegation involving an extramarital relationship.
• The actions followed departmental investigations under the 2018 service rules, PSC consultation and presidential approval.