A prison officer has been given permission to sue the Public Service Commission for continuing to withhold over $200,000 in salary benefits after the penalties for disciplinary offences he was accused of were overturned.
High Court Judge Carol Gobin granted Caramchand Sammy leave to purse his judicial review against the commission, late last week.
According to his court filings, obtained by Guardian Media, Sammy, who joined the Prison Service in 2012, was suspended for three disciplinary charges in late 2018.
The charges related to an incident in which Sammy allegedly took photographs of a inmate who was injured in an altercation with another and send them to colleagues working in the prison’s infirmary.
During the period of his suspension, Sammy only received three quarter of his monthly salary and benefits.
In November 2019, the commission informed Sammy that he was fined a two months salary for two offences and dismissed from the service for the other.
Sammy appealed to the Public Service Appeal Board, which eventually overturned the commission’s ruling.
In March last year, the tribunal ordered that Sammy be reprimanded and discharged for the first two charges and fined $5,000 for the third.
Over six months later, the Director of Personnel Administration wrote to Sammy acknowledging the board’s decision and informing him that he could resume duty with immediate effect.
Sammy was also told that the quarter of his salary which was withheld during the period of his suspension would not be restored under Section 89(4) of the Public Service Commission Regulations.
In his lawsuit, Sammy is seeking clarity over the regulation, which gives the commission the power to determine if and how much of the total salary deductions should be returned to a public officer if they are not exonerated or dismissed following disciplinary proceedings.
His attorneys are contending that the commission’s apparent discretion usurped the appellate function of the board that altered Sammy’s sentence.
“This amounts to an unlawful excess of jurisdiction on the part of the commission and constitutes an unlawful trespass on the constitutional domain of the Appeal Board,” they said.
They claimed that the decision breached the principles of natural justice as Sammy was not given an opportunity to be heard before it was taken.
“The principles of natural justice and/or due process to which the claimant is entitled required that he be given an opportunity to be heard before he was subjected to this unlawful addendum penalty,” they said
They also contend that the regulation which prescribes the power is unconstitutional.
“The officer is therefore punished twice for the same offence–the first punishment is imposed after a fair hearing in accordance with due process before the Appeal Board, the second punishment is as a result of the unilateral exercise of power reserved to the commission by the said regulation without any form of hearing,” they said.
In an affidavit attached to the case, Sammy detailed the effect of the salary deductions during his suspension and when he was dismissed before being reinstated severely affected his family.
He claimed that his father initially helped to support his family but he passed away earlier this year.
“I am left with no choice but to scramble to find a way to pay my bills even though I am in financial ruin,” he said. “I have loans with the bank and threats have been made to seize my house as I am behind on my payments,” he added
Sammy is being represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Renuka Rambhajan, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Alana Rambaran, Jared Jagroo and Natasha Bisram.
