A FORMER manager, performance and discipline officer in the Human Resources Unit of the Education Ministry, has been ordered to pay $5000 to the ministry’s permanent secretary.
This civil action before the Appellate Court concerns the PS appealing the decision of the High Court in granting the respondent, Arvind Kumar, leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision to dismiss him.
In September 2019, records show the ministry received a complaint of inappropriate behaviour (sexual harassment) against Mr Kumar.
He was told that the allegations would be investigated and that his cooperation and participation in the investigation were required.
Mr Kumar was also suspended on full pay.
In his response to the ‘Show Cause Notice’ in 2020, Mr Kumar said the allegations against him were fabricated to tarnish his reputation as he had not violated the dignity or morality of any female employee.
In his view, the allegations were instigated by certain employees who were subject to disciplinary action in the ministry, and due to his effective prosecution, the charges were proven against them.
He said the allegations had been taken out of all proportion in the working environment. Staff always interacted amicably.
He did not have any intention to cause discomfort, however as in his role, he had on many occasions corrected the attitude and behaviour of staff.
On April 9, 2020, Mr Kumar applied to the High Court for a JR of the decision to terminate his employment.
He sought an order to quash the PS decision and for immediate reinstatement, amongst other declarations.
The High Court granted leave on the basis that the judge found that Mr Kumar had an arguable JR case, had sufficient interest in the matter and that the matter was not frivolous or an abuse of process.
This was then appealed to the Appellate Court by the PS.
Hearing this appeal, Justices Chandana Prematilaka, Walton Morgan and Pamela Andrews concluded Mr Kumar has not presented an arguable case for JR.
“The (PS) has established that the Judge erred in finding that judicial review was available, that there was no adequate alternative to judicial review, and that (Mr Kumar) had presented an arguable case for judicial review,” the judges ruled on November 28.
“The appeal must therefore be allowed.”
Justices have also ordered that the High Court decision be set aside.
