Tribunal ordered to give written reasons for not dismissing charges against teacher

Derek Achong

A dis­ci­pli­nary tri­bunal ap­point­ed by the Teach­ing Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (TSC) has been or­dered to give writ­ten rea­sons for its de­ci­sion not to dis­miss a dis­ci­pli­nary charge against a teacher.

In a re­cent judg­ment, High Court Judge Robin Mo­hammed up­held a law­suit brought by Ravi Ram­di­al over the tri­bunal's fail­ure to pro­vide de­tails of its de­ci­sion in re­la­tion to his case.

Ac­cord­ing to the ev­i­dence, Ram­di­al joined the teach­ing ser­vice in 2009 and at­tained the po­si­tion of Teacher III.

The TSC ap­point­ed the tri­bunal af­ter he was ac­cused of mis­con­duct.

Af­ter the com­mis­sion com­plet­ed its case against Ram­di­al be­fore the tri­bunal in late Oc­to­ber 2021, his rep­re­sen­ta­tives pre­sent­ed a no-case sub­mis­sion, claim­ing that there was in­suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence to jus­ti­fy the al­le­ga­tions.

The fol­low­ing month, the tri­bunal gave its de­ci­sion oral­ly, find­ing that Ram­di­al had a case to an­swer.

Ram­di­al, through his lawyers Navin­dra Ram­nanan and Ricky Pan­do­hee, filed the case al­leg­ing that the tri­bunal breached Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion Reg­u­la­tions by fail­ing to pro­vide writ­ten rea­sons af­ter ren­der­ing its de­ci­sion.

The tri­bunal de­nied any wrong­do­ing, claim­ing that it does not nor­mal­ly pro­vide writ­ten rea­sons for such ap­pli­ca­tions.

It al­so claimed that it made no find­ing of fact on the dis­ci­pli­nary charge and made no de­fin­i­tive ad­verse de­ci­sion in re­la­tion to him.

The dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings were put on hold pend­ing the out­come of the law­suit.

In de­cid­ing the case, Jus­tice Mo­hammed agreed that writ­ten rea­sons should have been pro­vid­ed.

"The rea­sons giv­en by the tri­bunal were bare and un­in­tel­li­gi­ble, there­fore in­ad­e­quate. Though it was giv­en mid tri­al, ad­e­quate rea­sons are need­ed for the Claimant to know what he had to fo­cus on in de­fence," Jus­tice Mo­hammed said.

He ruled that the tri­bunal's stance was pro­ce­du­ral­ly un­fair and in breach of the prin­ci­ples of nat­ur­al jus­tice.

"More­over, the ab­sence of rea­sons gives the in­fer­ence that it is un­law­ful and ir­ra­tional," he said, as he sug­gest­ed that the tri­bunal failed in its du­ty to Ram­di­al.

Jus­tice Mo­hammed is­sued a se­ries of de­c­la­ra­tions on the de­ci­sion and an or­der re­quir­ing the tri­bunal to pro­vide its rea­sons with­in 28 days.

The de­ci­sion clears the way for the dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings to be con­clud­ed.

The tri­bunal was rep­re­sent­ed by Na­dine Na­bie, Ji­nai Chong Sing, Raquel Le Blanc, Michelle Ben­jamin, Melis­sa Pa­poon­s­ingh and Do­minique Bernard.