S.k. Williams V. Civil Service Commission, Ogun State (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

The plaintiff/appellant was employed by the then Western State Civil Service as a cleaner in 1969 and he rose to the post of Senior Clerical Officer in the Civil Service in 1982. The plaintiff as a court clerk was alleged to have committed official corruption by extorting the sum of N2,400.00 from one Mr. Amoo a party to a suit No. AB/8/81, to influence the outcome of the judgment, and he was issued a letter of disciplinary proceedings for it, and for absence from duty without leave. The plaintiff denied receiving the money and submitted an excuse duty certificate issued by the State Hospital to cover his absence from duty. It turned out that the Certificate was a light duty one. On 11/10/82 he was interdicted vide letter Ref. CRPA/F.120/162, and on January 1983 he received a letter dismissing him from the public service on ground of absence from duty without leave and official corruption, despite the fact that he had been discharged and acquitted of the alleged official corruption. He has claimed that his dismissal from the Ogun State Civil Service was malicious, mala fide, irregular and contrary to natural justice and the Public Service Commission Regulations 1976. Consequently he has claimed as follows against the defendant:

(a) A declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff from the public service by the defendant vide the defendant’s letter dated 17th January, 1983 is unlawful, null and void and of no effect.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is still in the defendant’s employment.

(c) An order reinstating the plaintiff into the Ogun State Civil Service.

(d) An order for the immediate payment of all the plaintiff’s salaries and other entitlements from the 11th of October, 1982 to date of judgment.

Alternatively

N50,000.00 (Fifty thousand Naira) being damages for the wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant by a letter dated 17th January, 1983.

The defendant’s case on the other hand is that the plaintiff absented himself from work without leave from 16/8/82-20/8/82 from 23/8/82-30/8/82, but he produced a light duty certificate not excuse duty dated 30/8/82 covering the said days. There was also allegation of official corruption against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was issued with a letter of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the alleged case of official corruption and absence from duty, which reply was not satisfactory and this led to the dismissal of the plaintiff. This was after he had been interdicted, and all actions were taken in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Commission Regulations of 1976.

After the exchange of pleadings witnesses gave evidence and their Counsel addressed the Court. The evidence were evaluated and the addresses considered before the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s case and pronounced as follows:-

“I am of the view that there was lawful cause for the dismissal for absence from duty without leave on the dates stated in Exhibit J wherein the plaintiff was placed on light duty on those days; the chief Registrar did not receive Exhibits A-A2. Furthermore the plaintiff’s absence from duty on September 13, 1983 also rendered him liable to dismissal, even if it is held that I erred in respect of my conclusion of Exhibits A -A2 and J.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, hence he appealed to this Court originally on two grounds of appeal which were increased to four after obtaining leave to amend the notice of appeal on 7/12/94. In compliance with Order 6 Rules 2 and 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 as amended, both parties exchanged briefs of argument which were adopted at the hearing of the appeal. Two issues were raised for determination in the appellant’s brief of argument and these issues were adopted by the respondent in the respondent’s brief of argument. I will treat the issues individually, starting with issue No.1 which is, whether the appellant has not sufficiently explained the reason for his absence from duty as to justify his dismissal from service under General Order 04201.

In arguing this issue learned Counsel for the appellants referred to Exh. ‘F’ the letter of dismissal which reads:-

“I wish to refer to my query Ref. No. C.113/30 of 5th November, 1982 in respect of the above subject matter and your reply of 11th November, 1982 thereto. I also have to inform you that having carefully examined your representations on the query, you are considered to have failed to exculpate yourself and are therefore found to be guilty of misconduct contrary to provisions of General Orders 04102 and 04201. In this connection, following the provision of regulation 56(2)(b)(I) of the Public Service Commission Regulations 1976 you are hereby dismissed from the Ogun State Public Service with immediate effect.”