The applicant was employed as a Senior Consultant with the respondent and was dismissed after being convicted of aggravated common assault, an offence for which he sentenced to a suspended 12-month imprisonment term. The respondent initiated disciplinary action under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, leading to the applicant’s dismissal.

 

The applicant argued that his dismissal was unfair given the personal nature of the offence and that it was unrelated to his job duties.  He also argued that his long employment with the respondent should be taken into consideration.  The applicant sought reinstatement with the respondent or alternative sanctions to termination, such as demotion, suspension, or a formal warning.

 

The respondent however, maintained that dismissal of the applicant was justified, due to the seriousness of the offence and its incompatibility with his employment in an integrity-based role within the public service. The respondent presented evidence outlining the applicant’s role and involvement in managing referrals, notifications, and assessments related to public sector integrity and misconduct investigations. The role responsibilities also included providing advice on compliance with ethical standards and conducting reviews and investigations on behalf of the respondent. The respondent argued that given the nature of these duties, the position demands the highest standards of honesty and integrity. For these reasons, and due to the potential reputational damage to the organisation, the respondent refused to impose a lesser penalty to the applicant.

 

The Public Service Appeal Board reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties, and considered the seriousness of the offence, and the lack of remorse shown by the applicant. The Board found the dismissal process was conducted fairly, with supportive measures offered to the applicant during the process, including suspension on full pay along with access to accumulated leave entitlements, and post dismissal by the provision of counselling services to assist with his rehabilitation.

 

The Public Service Appeal Board ruled that the applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unfair, or disproportionate, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

 

The decision can be read here.