Rasekila v Lesotho Telecommunication (CIV/APN 304 of 89) [1991] LSCA 100 (7 August 1991)

C I V / A P N / 3 0 4 / 89 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In t he A p p l i c a t i on of : T H A M A H A NE R A S E K I LA P l a i n t i ff v L E S O T HO C O R P O R A T I ON T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I ON D e f e n d a nt J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by t he H o n. M r, J u s t i ce J. L. K h e o la on t he 7th day of A u g u s t, 1 9 9 1. T h is is an a p p l i c a t i on f or an o r d er in t he f o l l o w i ng t e r m s :- ( a) D e c l a r i ng A p p l i c a n t 's d i s m i s s al by R e s p o n d e nt null and v o i d; ( b) D i r e c t i ng R e s p o n d e nt to r e - i n s t a te A p p l i c a nt f o r t h w i t h: (c) D i r e c t i ng R e s p o n d e nt to p ay A p p l i c a n t 's e m o l u m e n ts w i th e f f e ct f r om t he d a te of d i s m i s s al to t he d a te of r e - i n s t a t e- m e n t; (d) D i r e c t i ng R e s p o n d e nt to p ay t he c o s ts h e r e b y; ( e) G r a n t i ng A p p l i c a nt s u ch f u r t h er a n d / or a l t e r n a t i ve r e l i e f; The a p p l i c a nt w as e m p l o y ed by t he r e s p o n d e nt on t he 1st M a r c h, 1982 as Head of t he F i n a n ce D i v i s i o n. He w as on p r o b a t i on f or t w e l ve m o n t hs and on t he 14th J a n u a ry he s a t i s f a c t o r i ly c o m p l e t ed h is p r o b a t i on 2/ p e r i od - 2- p e r i o d. He w as a d m i t t ed to t he p e r m a n e nt a nd p e n s i o n a b le e s t a b l i s h m e nt of t he r e s p o n d e n t. He joint t he P e n s i on Fund of t he r e s p o n d e nt and h is c o n t r i b u t i on to t he Fund w as d e d u c t ed f r om h is s a l a ry on m o n t h ly b a s i s. T he r e s p o n d e nt c o n t r i b u t ed a c e r t a in a m o u nt s t a t ed In t he Personnel R e g u l a t i o n s, T he a p p l i c a nt d e p o s es t h at on t he 2ist A p r i l, 1 9 89 he r e c e i v ed a l e t t er of t e r m i n a t i on of h is s e r- v i c es w i th t he r e s p o n d e n t. T he p u r p o r t ed d i s m i s s al w as b a s ed on c l a u se 29-3-1 of t he Personnel R e g u l a t i o n s. He s a ys t h at b e f o re he was d i s m i s s ed by t he R e s p o n d e nt he w as n e v er g i v en a ny h e a r i ng p u r s u a nt to R e g u l a t i on 28 of t he Personnel R e g u l a t i o n s. T he r e s p o n d e nt a l l e g es t h at t he d i s m i s s al w as u n l a w f ul in t he f o l l o w i ng r e s p e c t s: ( a) it w as n ot t a k en in c o m p l i a n ce w i th t he p r o v i s i o ns of C l a u se 28 in as m u ch as I was n ot g i v en a ny h e a r i ng p u r s u a nt t h e r e to a nd t he f a ct t h a t, I w as on p e n s i o n a b le s e r v i c e; ( b) it d e p r i v ed me of my l e g i t i m a te e x p e c- t a t i on to w o rk f or R e s p o n d e nt till r e- t i r e m e nt or till I r e s i gn or my s e r v i c es w e re t e r m i n a t ed f or a lawful p u r p o se p u r s u a nt to law; ( c) It is c o n t r a ry v i ew of t he p u b l ic n a t u re of R e s p o n d e n t; to natural j u s t i ce In (d) it w as a l l e g e d ly t a k en by t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs of R e s p o n d e nt in c o n t r a v e n t i on of t he c l e ar p r o v i s i o ns of t he P e r s o n n el R e g u l a t i o ns w h i ch f o rm t he b a s is of t he t e r ms a nd c o n d i t i o ns of my e m p l o y m e n t; 3/ ( e) ..... -3- (c) It wrongfully, unlawfully and unilaterally changed the said terms and conditions of my employment without my knowledge and consent; He deposes that upon the purported dismissal he accepted the terminal benefits without prejudice. Mr. A. K. Makara is the Managing Director of the respondent. In his opposing affidavit he deposes that the applicant had been delegated by him to represent him and the respondent at a conference in Maseru. He had instructed the Applicant to attend, prepare minutes and to report to him on the conference which was held in Maseru at the beginning of 1989. Despite repeated requests to him to produce the minutes for his perusal, the respondent failed, refused and/or neglected to produce the minutes. On the 28th March, 1989 M r. Makara alleges that he telephoned the respondent In connexion with this matter and his response was rude, insulting and disobedient. The conversation ended on the basis that he, the applicant, would produce the minutes In his own time. The deponent felt that the behaviour of the applicant constituted disobedience , insolence and wilful neglect of his duty. He took the matter In the gravest light which eventually ended up with his dismissal on the 28th March, 1989. The deponent alleges that the applicant had demon- strated unwillingness to carry out orders, refusal to work under him in a satisfactory manner and had neglected his duties on a regular basis, a more serious of which 4/ was the .... -4- w as t he f a ct t h at he had f a i l ed to p ay a c r e d i t or w h i ch had r e s u l t ed in s e v e re e m b a r r a s s m e nt to t he r e s p o n d e nt and a f f e c t ed t he r e s p o n d e n t 's c r e d i b i l i ty with a d o n or c o u n t r y. T h is m a t t er w as a l so d i s c u s s ed w i th t he a p p l i- c a nt on t he o c c a s i o n, p er t e l e p h o n e, a nd r e g r e t a b l y, t he d e p o n e nt s a ys t h at he r e c e i v ed t he s a me d e f i a n ce f r om t he a p p l i c a nt to e i t h er c a r ry o ut h is d u t i es or to m a ke a r e a s o n a b le e x p l a n a t i on as h e ad of f i n a n ce d i v i s i on to s ee to it t h at i n v o i c es w e re paid t i m e o u s l y. He w r o te a letter ( A n n e x u re " B ") in w h i ch he a s k ed t he a p p l i c a nt to r e s i g n. On t he 29th M a r c h, 1989 M r. M a k a ra p l a c ed t he e n t i re p r o b l em r e g a r d i ng t he a p p l i c a nt b e f o re t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs w ho v o t ed to d i s m i ss t he a p p l i c a n t. T he l e t t er of t he 19th A p r i l, 1989 w as w r i t t en by t he d e- p o n e nt to t he a p p l i c a nt c o n f i r m i ng t he t e r m i n a t i on of a p p l i c a n t 's s e r v i c es on n o t i ce on 2 8 th M a r c h, 1989 as c o n f i r m ed by t he Board of D i r e c t o rs on t he n e xt d a y. On t he 2 8 th M a r c h, 1989 M r. M a k a ra c o n d u c t ed a h e a r i ng b e t w e en t he a p p l i c a n t, h i m s e lf and t he p e r s o n n el m a n a g e r. As a r e s u lt of t h is m e e t i ng t he a p p l i c a nt w r o te a l e t t er ( A n n e x u re "B") in w h i ch he u n c o n d i t i o n a l ly a p o l o g i z ed and p l e a d ed t h at t he m a t t er s h o u ld n ot be r e f e r r ed to t he Board l e v e l. It will be c o n v e n i e nt at t h is s t a ge t o. p r o d u ce a f ew of t he l e t t e rs e x c h a n g ed b e t w e en t he a p p l i c a nt and t he r e s p o n d e n t 's M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or In 5/ o r d er to -5- o r d er to d e c i de ( a) w ho d i s m i s s ed t he a p p l i c a nt b e t w e en t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or and t he r e s p o n d e nt and w h en t he d i s m i s s al w as m a d e. (b) w h e t h er t he a p p l i c a nt w as a g i v en a c h a n ce to be h e a rd b e f o re he was d i s- m i s s e d. T he letter of t he 28th M a r c h, 1989 ( A n n e x u re "8") r e a ds as f o l l o w s; "Mr. C l a rk R a s e k i l a, c/o L . T . C ., P. O. Box 1 0 3 7, M A S E R U. 100 D e ar S i r, It is w i th r e g r et t h at y ou a re a d v i s ed to h a nd in y o ur r e s i g n a t i on i m m e d i a t e ly t o d a y. This f o l l o ws my m e mo r e f e r r i ng to E r i c s s o n 's u p a id i n v o i c es a nd y o ur latest u n b e c o m i ng a t t i t u d es t o w a r ds m e, w h en I w as t r y i ng to a s s i st y ou in w h at a p p e a rs to be y o ur f a i l u re in p r o d u c i ng t he m i n u t es of t he w o r k i ng G r o up on t a r r i f fs held in M a s e ru at t he b e g i n n i ng Of 1989. I m u st a d m it I h a ve t r i ed all I c o u ld to m a ke y ou u n d e r s t a nd t he I m p o r t a n ce of w o r k i ng a* a t e a m, b ut y ou n e v er b o t h e r ed to t a ke my a d v i c e. C o u ld y ou p l e a se It Is my s t r o ng b e l i ef t h at y ou will f i nd a b e t t er p l a ce s o m e w h e re w h e re y ou will a l so f i nd a p e a ce of m i n d. m a ke a r r a n g e m e n ts w i th t he L e s o t ho B a nk c o n- c e r n i ng y o ur c ar and if y ou feel it is n e c e s- s a ry y ou m ay g i ve o ur Personnel M a n a g er c o p i es of all c o r r e s p o n d e n c es y ou m a ke w i th t he b a nk c o n c e r n i ng t he c ar t h at y ou n ow p o s s e ss u n d er LTC g u a r a n t e e. The o t h er loans y ou c an s e t t le w i th t he CA. W i th b e st r e g a r d s. Y o u rs s i n c e r e l y, A . K. M A K A RA ( S g d) M A N A G I NG D I R E C T O R" 6/ T he l e t t er .... - 6- T he letter of t he 28th M a r c h, 1989 (Annexure "D")reads as f o l l o w s: "The M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or LTC D e ar S i r, YOUR L E T T ER OF 2 8 / 0 3 / 1 9 89 - REF EN - 401. As d i s c u s s ed w i th y ou in o ur m e e t i ng of t h is m o r n i ng on t he a b o ve in t he p r e s e n ce of t he P e r s o n n el M a n a g e r, I w i sh to r e p e at t h at I s i n c e r e ly a nd h o n e s t ly a p o l o g i se f or all t he t h i n gs t h at h a ve led to t he w r i t i ng of t he letter u n d er r e f e r e n ce i n c l u s i ve of t he m i s h ap of W e d n e s d ay last w e e k. I h o pe t h is p l ea will m e et w i th y o ur k i nd and f a v o u r a b le c o n s i d e r a t i on as I c an o n ly p r o m i se to w o rk m u ch h a r d er to p a t ch up w h a t e v er loopholes y ou will b r i ng to my a t t e n- t i on r e g a r d i ng w h at y ou s a id my w e a k e st a r ea is in t he r e l a t i o n s h ip w i th o t h er p e o p le in L . T . C. S i n ce I do n ot intend to e v en m a ke a ny a r g u m e n ts (appeal to h i g h er a u t h o r i t i e s) or m a k i ng c o u n t e r - c l a i ms f or f e ar of a g g r e v a t i ve m a t t e r s; my g e n u i ne r e q u e st is t h at If it be a c c e p t a b le to you S i r, p l e a se t r e at t h is m a t t er as c o n f i d e n t i al w h i le p e r h a p; g i v i ng me t he last c h a n c e. r e a ch B o a rd l e v e l. I r e q u e st t h at it d o es n ot Yours s i n c e r e l y, ( S g d) T H A M A H A NE C . F . D. R A S E K I LA " T he l e t t er of t he 19th A p r i l, 1989 ( A n n e x u re " T R I ") r e a ds as f o l l o w s: "Mr. T C F D R a s e k i la P O Box 1037 M A S E RU 100 D e ar M r. R a s e k i l a, RE : T E R M I N A T I ON OF YOUR S E R V I C ES 7/ On .. - 7- On t he 2 8 th d ay of M a r c h, 1989, I a d d r e s s ed a letter to y ou r e q u e s t i ng y o ur r e s i g n a t i on as a r e s u lt of c e r t a in u n s a t i s f a c t o ry c i r c u m s t a n c es w h i ch w e re c o n v e y ed to y ou by m y s e l f. On t he 2 8 th d ay of M a r c h, 1 9 8 9, y ou r e s p o n d ed to t h is letter t e n d e r i ng y o ur a p o l o g i es f or y o ur b e h a v i o ur a nd m a k i ng a plea f or t he f a v o u r a b le r e - c o n s i d e r a t l on of y o ur e m p l o y m e n t. This m a t t er has r e c e i v ed my full c o n s i d e r a t i on a nd w as p l a c ed b e f o re t he Board of D i r e c t o rs for t h e ir final d e c i s i o n. 1 9 8 9, t he Board of D i r e c t o rs d u ly c o n s i d e r ed Y o ur p o s i t i on a nd it is my d u ty to I n f o rm you t h at t h e ir d e c i s i on was to t e r m i n a te y o ur s e r v i c es w i th t h is C o r p o r a t i o n. On t he 29th d ay of M a r c h, In t he r e s u l t, y o ur s e r v i c es w i th t h is C o r p o r a t i on h a ve b e en t e r m i n a t ed in t e r ms of A r t i c le 29 of t he L e s o t ho T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o ns C o r p o r a t i on Personnel R e g u l a t i o n s, c u r r e n t ly In f o r c e. 29.3.1 t h e r e of t he C o r p o r a t i on is o b l i g ed to g i ve T he C o r p o r a t i on shall p ay y ou o ne m o n t h 's n o t i c e. you c a sh y o ur s e r v i c e s. n lieu of o ne m o n t h 's n o t i ce of t e r m i n a t i on of In t e r ms of C l a u se You a re r e s p e c t f u l ly r e q u e s t ed to call at t h is o f f i ce in o r d er t h at you m ay be p a id y o ur a c c r u ed b e n e f i t s, l e a ve p a y, p e n s i on a nd o t h er e n t i t l e m e n ts to w h i ch y ou m ay be t he b e n e f i c i a r y, less u s u al d e d u c t i o n s. Yours f a i t h f u l l y, ( S g d) A . K. M A K A RA M A N A G I NG D I R E C T OR R e g u l a t i on 2 8 . 4 .6 p r o v i d es t h at d i s m i s s al of an e m p l o y ee of t he r e s p o n d e nt is to be d e c i d ed by t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t o r. R e g u l a t i on 2 9 .2 p r o v i d es t h at t he d e c i s i on r e g a r d i ng t e r m i n a t i on of s e r v i c es of an e m p l o y ee of t he r e s p o n d e nt s h a ll be t a k en by t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t o r. It s e e ms to me t he t wo R e g u l a t i o ns m e n- t i o n ed a b o ve m e an t he s a me t h i n g. T he p o w er to d i s m i ss or to t e r m i n a te s e r v i c es is d e l e g a t ed to t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or by t he r e s p o n d e n t. 8/ A n n e x u re " B" -8- Annexure " B" is not a letter of dismissal but a letter of advice to the applicant by the Managing Director that he must resign and he gives reason why t he applicant should do s o. This letter cannot be regarded as a letter of dismissal because it was a kind advice to the applicant because resignation is not as bad as a dismissal when one i$ looking for another j o b. In Annexure "O" the applicant apologized for t he mistakes he had made and promised to work very hard if given t he chance. By implication t he applicant admitted t he allegations made by the Managing Director In Annexure " " B" that he had not paid certain invoices timeously and his failure to produce t he minutes of t he Working Group on tariffs held in Maseru at t he beginning of 1989. The most important thing in t he applicant's letter is that he did not accept the advice that he should resign and the Managing Director cannot be heard to say that he dismissed the applicant by that letter dated the 28th March, 1989. If the applicant d id not c o me to work on t he 29th M a r c h, 1989 it was not because he had been dismissed on the previous day but it must have been for other reasons. The letter which actually dismissed the appli- cant is Annexure T R " I ", In paragraph 3 of that letter it was made clear that the applicant's services had been terminated and he was invited to come to the respondent's office in order that he might be paid his 9/ accrued - 9- a c c r u ed b e n e f i t s, leave p a y, p e n s i on and o t h er e n t i t l e m e n ts to w h i ch he m i g ht be t he b e n e f i c i a ry less t he usual d e d u c t i o n s. W h at t he letter is p u r p o r t i ng to do Is to m a ke t he t e r m i n a t i on of a p p l i c a n t 's s e r v i c es to be r e t r o s p e c t i ve to t he 2 8 th M a r c h, 1989 w h en t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs d e c i d ed to t e r m i n a te a p p l i c a n t 's s e r v i c es w i th t he r e s p o n d e n t. I am of t he o p i n i on t h at t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or had no p o w er to m o ke t he d i s m i s s al r e t r o s p e c t i v e. He o u g ht to h a ve w r i t t en t he l e t t er on t he s a me d ay t h at t he d i s m i s s al w as m a d e. T he d i s m i s s al o u g ht to h a ve t a k en e f f e ct f r om t he d a te of t he w r i t i ng of t he l e t t e r. All w h at t he Board of D i r e c t o rs d e c i d ed on t he 2 8 th M a r c h, 1989 is t h at t he s e r v i c es of t he a p p l i c a nt be t e r m i n a t e d. T h e re is n o t h i ng to s h ow t h at t h ey w e re to be t e r m i n a t ed w i th I m m e d i a te e f f e c t. I t h e r e f o re c o me to t he c o n c l u s i on t h at t he s e r v i c es of t he a p p l i c a nt w e re t e r m i n a t ed on t he 19th A p r i l, 1989 w h en t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or of t he r e s p o n d e nt c o m m u n i c a t ed t he f a ct to h im t h at t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs h ad d e c i d ed t h at he be d i s m i s s e d. In p a r a g r a ph 3 he w as a c c o r d i n g ly d i s m i s s e d. It s e e ms to me t h at t he d e c i s i on to d i s m i ss t he a p p l i c a nt w as r e a c h ed by t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs of t he r e s p o n d e nt a nd t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or m e r e ly c o m m u n i c a t ed t h at d e c i s i on to t he a p p l i c a n t. The q u e s t i on Is w h e t h er t he B o a rd of D i r e c t o rs had t he p o w er to do so in t he light of R e g u l a t i o ns 2 8 . 4 *6 a nd 2 9 .2 w h i ch d e l e g a te t h is p o w er to t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t o r, I am of t he o p i n i on t h at t he a n s w er m u st be In t he 1 9/ p o s i t i ve .... -10- p o s i t i ve because section 20 (1) of t he empowering A ct -" T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i on Act 1979 - p r o v i d es t h at t he affairs of t he Corporation shall be managed and c o n t r o l- led by a Board of Directors w h i ch shall c o n s i st of -". The p o w er to m a n a ge and control m u st i n c l u de the p o w er to appoint and dismiss the aofficers of t he C o r p o r a t i o n. If I am right t h at t he Board of Directors had t he power to d i s m i ss t he a p p l i c a nt t h en t he next q u e s t i on is whether t h ey gave t he applicant a c h a n ce to be heard b e f o re t h ey c a me to the c o n c l u s i on t h at he m u st be dismissed. I think t he a n s w er m u st be In t he n e g a t i ve b e c a u se t he m i n u t es of the meeting of t he Board at which a d e c i s i on was m a de t h at t h e a p p l i c a nt be dismissed read as f o l l o w s: " T e r m i n a t i on of M r, T. C. F. D. Raseklla's S e r v i ce (Finance M a n a g e r ). The M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or reported that h is office h as found it d i f f i c u lt to c o n t i n ue working w i th M r. T. C. F. D. Rasekila (Finance M a n a g e r) as he w as failing to satisfactorily perform h is d u t i es and w as refusing to t a ke o r d e rs from h is p e r s o n. T he Board d i r e c t ed t h at h is services be t e r m i n a t e d ." I am of the o p i n i on t h at if the Board decided to t a ke upon t h e m s e l v es to g i ve a d i r e c t i ve t h at the a p p l i c a nt should be dismissed they w e re under an obligation to h e ar the a p p l i c a nt b e f o re they decided to d i s m i ss him. They apparently took the word of the M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or w i t h o ut questioning i t. At least if t he Board had received a w r i t t en M a n a g er or Head of D i v i s i on report by the Personnel in terns of Regulations 28.1 and 28.2 it would have been clear to the Board that a proper investigation was made and that the applicant had presented his case. The Managing Director did not present any written report before the Board before a decision was taken to dismiss the applicant. 11/To reinforce -11- To reinforce my finding that the applicant w as dismissed by the Board of Directors of the respondent reference c an be m a de to Annexure " T R 4" to the replying affidavit in paragraph 2 of which the Managing Director said " H is services with LTC have been terminated by Board of Directors in its last meeting on the 29th March, 1989. I am of t he opinion that the audi alteram partem rule applied in t h is case and that the Board seriously violated it. Their action w as therefore null and void. The Managing Director seems to have been not quite sure as to who dismissed the applicant. In paragraph 7 of h is opposing affidavit he says: "I admit that I d i s m i s s ed the Applicant on the 28th of April 1989 and t h is w as confirmed as h as been indicated by my letter to him on the 19th of April 1989. However, in order not to prejudice the Applicant and to remove any d o u bt as to the attitude of the Board of D i r e c t o r s, I placed t h is entire problem before the Board as I have indicated on the 29th of March and the Board confirmed my a c t i o ns and did n ot see f it to amend or change the d e c i s i on in any w a y ." I do not agree with him that the Board merely confirmed h is actions. The m i n u t es of the Board do not support him and clearly indicate that it w as the Board that directed that the applicant be d i s m i s s e d. They did not confirm the a c t i o ns of the Managing Director because he had not dismissed the applicant. 12/If the applicant.... - 1 2- If the applicant w as dismissed by the Managing Director that w as equally unlawful on a number of g r o u n d s. The m o st Important of which is that on the 28th M a r c h, 1989 the Managing Director purported to conduct a hearing in t e r ms of REgulation 28.2 which in part states that to establish f a c t s, a hearing will normally be conducted by the Personnel Manager, Head of Division and other staff called in to g i ve evidence. It w as submitted on behalf of t he applicant that t he Managing Director cannot be complainant, prosecutor and judge in h is own c a u s e. T h at because he w as a w i t n e ss in the c a se the Personnel Manager or a Head of Division ought to have presided at the hearing. On the other hand it w as submitted on behalf of t he respondent that a proper hearing w as conducted by the Managing Director himself (certainly a m o re senior position than the head of d i v i s i o n) and the personnel m a n a g e r. It w as submitted that t h at c o n s t i t u t es full compliance with Regulation 2 8. Regulation 28 is very clear that a hearing in order to establish the f a c ts m u st be d o ne by the Personnel Manager or a Head of Division. The Managing Director is excluded f or o b v i o us r e a s o ns because he is the person w ho h as to take the final d e c i s i on - dismissal - when all the f a c ts have been established. Because he w as the complainant in the instant c a se I am of t he opinion t h at he ought to appear in the inquiry only as a w i t n e s s. In a court of law the procedure is that when a person appearing before it c o m m i ts contempt of court, such as insulting the c o u rt itself, the presiding judicial officer may summarily d e al with t he 13/matter and - 1 3- m a t t er and s e n t e n ce t he c u l p r it t h e re and t h e n; B ut if he d e c i d es t h at an i n q u i ry (a t r i a l) be c o n d u c t e d, he c a n n ot p r e s i de at such t r i al b e c a u se he is a w i t n e s s. I am of t he v i ew t h at o n ce t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or d e c i d ed t h at a h e a r i ng should be d o n e, he o u g ht to h a ve appeared as w i t n e ss and n ot as t he o f f i c er c o n d u c t i ng t he h e a r i n g. A c c o r d i ng to R e g u l a t i on 28 he is n ot supposed to c o n d u ct any h e a r i ng w h en a m e m b er of staff of t he r e s p o n d e nt Is to f a ce a d i s c i p l i n a ry a c t i o n. I t h i nk t he s u b m i s s i on t h at t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or c a n n ot be a c o m p l a i n a n t, p r o s e c u t or and j u d ge in h is o wn c a u se h as some s u b s t a n c e. M o re so b e c a u se t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or is a m e m b er of t he Board w h i ch d i r e c t ed t h at t he a p p l i c a n t 's service be t e r m i n a t e d. T h e re is n o t h i ng to show t h at w h en t he d e c i s i on w as t a k en t he M a n a g i ng D i r e c t or did n ot t a ke p a r t. He o u g ht n ot to h a ve t a k en p a rt b e c a u se he is t he c o m p l a i n a n t. T he submission t h at R e g u l a t i on 28 did n ot a p p ly in t he i n s t a nt c a se of summary d i s m i s s al should be rejected i n a s m u ch as t he r e s p o n d e nt itself purported to c o n d u ct a h e a r i ng in t e r ms of R e g u l a t i on 2 8. M o r e o v e r, I am of t he o p i n i on t h at in t he c a se of any m i s c o n d u c t, e v en u n d er 2 9 . 1 . 1, t he f a c ts m u st be e s t a b l i s h ed and t he o n ly p r o c e d u re prescribed f or t he i n q u i ry to e s t a b l i sh t he f a c ts is t h at u n d er R e g u l a t i o ns 28.1 and 2 8 . 2. 14/In t he r e s u lt - 1 4- In t he r e s u lt t he a p p l i c a t i on is granted in terms of p r a y e rs ( a ), ( b ), (c) and ( d ). J. L. Kheola J u d g e. 7 th A u g u s t, 1 9 9 1. For A p p l i c a nt F or R e s p o n d e nt - - M r. P h e ko M r. F i c k.