RTSA CASHIER – COURT CONFIRMS DISMISSAL
By Dickson Jere
On the fateful day – RTSA Revenue Collector – knocked off late in the night with the daily revenue amounting to K9,600. Instead of depositing it in the safe as per mandatory procedure, he put the money in plastic bags and locked it in the container that was temporarily being used as offices in Kitwe.
For this miscalculated mishap, the officer who was in charge of Cashiers, was charged and dismissed from employment for dishonest conduct after appearing before the Disciplinary Committee. He had a reason though for his action but the Committee did not think it was relevant to rebut the charges.
He then sued the Roads Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA) in the High Court for wrongful dismissal and demanding for damages for embarrassment, mental anguish and gratuity. He contended that he kept the money in the container as he thought it was more safer there after he found the offices were not guarded around 20:00 hours when he knocked off.
The High Court Judge who heard his case threw it out saying he did not dispute the fact that he breached procedure on how to handle RTSA monies – which are government funds. He also did not inform his superiors when making the decision to put the money in the container instead of the safe in the offices.
Dissatisfied with the High Court Judgement, the cashier launched an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
A three member panel of Judge analyzed the case and held thus;
“It is not in dispute that the Appellant did not secure the revenue in the safe but elsewhere,” the Judges observed in their 24 page Judgement.
The officer had contended that under the new employment law (Section 52 of the Employment Code), the burden lies on the employer to prove the allegations that he removed the money from the RTSA premises without authority.
“We hold the view that the Respondent did prove that there was a valid reason for termination of employment and that a valid reason was given for the dismissal,” the Court held.
The Court stated that there was no wrongful dismissal as the offence which the officer was charged with was proved at the disciplinary hearing and that he did not dispute the facts against him except for the exculpatory explanation.
“Therefore, we are of the view that the a substratum of facts existed to support the charges and dismissal of the appellant from employment,” the Court said.
Case citation Ian Mpundu v Road Transport and Safety Agency – CAZ Appeal No. 107/2021 and judgment delivered 21st July, 2023.
Such cases always attract debate as to whether other alternative punishment should have been considered especially that he did not steal the money. But then, the charges he faced called for instant dismissal if found guilty.
Moot question indeed!