Kurut v Secretary, NJSS [2004] PGDC 13; DC130 (20 December 2004)

DC130

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL STAFF SERVICE APPEAL TRIBUNAL]

BETWEEN

DAVID KURUT
Appellant

AND

SECRETARY, NJSS
Respondent

MADANG: P P POLOH
2004: 18, 20 December

Counsel
Appellant in person
Bernard Koea for the Respondent

DECISION

POLOH: David Kurut, the Appellant was employed by the NJSS as a Security Officer attached to the National Court in Madang. The officer was removed by a Notice of Termination of Employment dated 23rd May 2000. The Notice of Termination reads:-

"This is to advice you that your employment with the NJSS is hereby terminated close of business (COB) today 23/05/2000.

This is because you acted in a disgraceful conduct in so far as sleeping in the Judges Chamber's with two (2) women on the night of 20th May 2000 and in the morning of 21st may 2000.

You are required to return any properties that belong to NJSS that includes office keys, ID cards, uniforms before your final entitlement (if any) is process for payment

This notice is sanctioned by the office by of the Secretary, NJSS".

The Notice of Termination was effected by Mr Lai Mai then Assistant Secretary Personnel on behalf of the Secretary of the NJSS.

There is no provision in the NJSS Act 1987 (as amended) which gives the power to the Secretary or his delegate in this case, Mr Lai Mai to terminate the employment of the Appellant. This course of action taken is not provided for under the Act.

In this matter, according to the Notice of Termination the appellant acted in a disgraceful conduct in so far as sleeping in the Judges Chamber's with two (2) women on the night of 20th May 2000 and in the morning of the 21st May 2000. There were no reports in the appeal book to support this allegation. I have no doubt, therefore the Secretary's Notice of Termination of Employment is a disciplinary action which has been executed in total breach of Section 16 of the NJSS Act. Consequently, the Appellant has not been accorded with the right to be heard as stipulated under Section 16.

In the circumstances, the only appropriate remedy would be for the officer to be reinstated to his former position or one of its equivalent with salary backdated to the time of termination (23/05/2000).

In Person: Complainant
Bernard Koea: Defendant