Jensen La Vende

Se­nior Re­porter

jensen.lavende@guardian.co.tt

High Court Judge Jus­tice Ricky Rahim has or­dered that a Spe­cial Re­serve Po­lice (SRP) of­fi­cer face dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings to an­swer ques­tions of mis­con­duct for col­lo­qui­al­ly “duck­ing work.”

The 26-page rul­ing found that Tr­is­hann Sieu­raj-Ramdeen should face a tri­bunal, which he orig­i­nal­ly stayed pend­ing the out­come of the mat­ter. He al­so or­dered that she pay the le­gal cost of the Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PSC) for bring­ing the mat­ter to court.

In a pre-ac­tion let­ter dat­ed No­vem­ber 21, 2023, Sieu­raj-Ramdeen’s lawyers wrote to the PSC in­form­ing them of her ob­jec­tion to the ap­point­ment of a tri­bunal and the in­sti­tu­tion of dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings on the ba­sis of a breach of Reg­u­la­tion 90, in­or­di­nate de­lay re­sult­ing in pro­ce­dur­al un­fair­ness, and abuse of process.

It is al­leged that Sieu­raj-Ramdeen took up em­ploy­ment as an SRP un­der the Min­istry of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty while em­ployed as a Tem­po­rary Clerk I, Act­ing Clerk II at the Min­istry of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty.

While she ad­mit­ted to be­ing an SRP, she de­nied that she failed to ac­count for ab­sences from du­ty as a Tem­po­rary Clerk I while si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly re­port­ing for du­ties as an SRP. She al­so de­nied that the days were un­ac­count­ed for. It was al­leged that for sev­er­al days she signed the du­ty reg­is­ter for both posts, which she de­nied, adding that she ap­plied for ca­su­al leave.

Ac­cord­ing to the judg­ment, on Au­gust 17, 2018, the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ceived a copy of a mem­o­ran­dum from the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice dat­ed Au­gust 9, 2018, in­form­ing him of a dis­ci­pli­nary mat­ter in­volv­ing Sieu­raj-Ramdeen.

“The Act­ing DPA at the time is­sued sev­er­al mem­o­ran­da to the Per­ma­nent Sec­re­tary (PS), Min­istry of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty, in­form­ing him of Reg­u­la­tion 90 and that he should draft al­le­ga­tions of mis­con­duct against the Claimant and ap­point an in­ves­tiga­tive of­fi­cer to in­ves­ti­gate the al­le­ga­tions. These mem­o­ran­da were is­sued be­tween Sep­tem­ber 12, 2019, and Au­gust 8, 2020, the first hav­ing been is­sued over one year since the PSC was in­formed of the al­le­ga­tions. No ac­tion be­ing forth­com­ing, the DPA is­sued a de­mi-of­fi­cial let­ter to the PS en­quir­ing of the sta­tus of the mat­ter, but no re­sponse was had to that let­ter.”

By let­ter dat­ed Ju­ly 26, 2021, Sieu­raj-Ramdeen was in­formed of the al­le­ga­tions of mis­con­duct against her and that an in­ves­ti­gat­ing of­fi­cer was ap­point­ed. On Feb­ru­ary 8, 2022, a de­ci­sion was tak­en to have dis­ci­pli­nary pro­ceed­ings against Sieu­raj-Ramdeen, and on Au­gust 23, 2022, the PSC ap­point­ed a tri­bunal.

The tri­bunal was in­formed of their ap­point­ments on April 5, 2023, with the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Ad­min­is­tra­tion be­ing told of the tri­bunal on June 14, 2023. Sieu­raj-Ramdeen was told she was to face a tri­bunal by let­ter dat­ed Au­gust 22, 2023, and re­ceived the let­ter six days lat­er.

Rahim found that the de­lay by the Per­ma­nent Sec­re­tary to in­sti­tute pro­ceed­ings was in­cred­i­ble.

Sieu­raj-Ramdeen, through her at­tor­neys, sub­mit­ted that there was un­due de­lay be­tween the time she was told of the al­le­ga­tions against her and the time the tri­bunal was con­vened, which she claimed was prej­u­di­cial.

Rahim, in dis­miss­ing the claim, said, “Be­fore dis­pos­ing of the case, the court must com­ment that in ap­pro­pri­ate cir­cum­stances, de­lay of this type may have led to in­escapable prej­u­dice to the of­fi­cer who is sub­ject of the pro­ceed­ings. The rea­sons for the dif­fer­ent pe­ri­ods of de­lay re­flect ad­min­is­tra­tive malaise on the part not of the PSC but by per­sons in its em­ploy and those in the em­ploy of the Min­istry of Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty, who are du­ty-bound to do their job with due dis­patch and ef­fi­cien­cy with the best in­ter­est of the pub­lic in mind at all times.