Seereeram v Public Service Commission
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Marcus, J. |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2001 HC 169 |
| Docket Number | H.C.A. No. S-262 of 2001 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 19 December 2001 |
High Court
Marcus, J.
H.C.A. No. S-262 of 2001
Mr. A. Ramlogan, led by Mr. H. Seunath, S.C., for the applicant
Mr. T. Thorne for the respondent
Administrative law - Judicial review — Public remedies — Applicant brought proceedings for judicial review claiming, inter alia, a conservatory order against the Public Service Commission prohibiting it from prosecuting charges preferred against him; certiorari to quash the decision of the PSC to prefer disciplinary charges against him and declaration that the purported charges against him were not substantiated by facts and were thus null and void and of no legal effect — Whether charges against applicant unreasonable — Whether issues raised and relied on by applicant were properly matters of judicial review proceedings or belonged before disciplinary tribunal instead — Whether Permanent Secretary had jurisdiction to appoint an officer to investigate allegations against applicant — Judgment for applicant for reliefs sought and costs.
The applicant has been a public servant for over 40 years, having entered the service in August, 1960 as a clerical officer. He is due to retire in December, 2001 when he reaches age 60. Between 1960 and 4th August, 2000 the applicant worked his way to the top, his last substantive post being that of Assistant Director, Policy Research and Planning (Range 63). However, he was in 1996 appointed to act as Director of Agricultural Planning, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources (“Director”) (Range 66) in which office he remained until he was seconded on contract to TANTEAK, a Government controlled company with effect from 4th August, 2000.
To complete the picture, it should be mentioned that he is the holder of a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture (U.W.I.) and a Master's degree in Agricultural Economics (University of Canterbury, New Zealand).
While acting in the post of Director of Agricultural Planning, the applicant's duties and responsibilities included and extended to planning and policy formulation, the public sector investment programme, preparation of cabinet notes and official speeches for the Minister of Agriculture, compilation of ministerial briefs for international negotiations and meetings. Among the many other responsibilities that the applicant detailed in his affidavit filed on 1st March, 2001 in these proceedings was the representation of the Ministry at regional and international for a, including the Free Trade Area, and the World Trade Organisation.
The applicant deposed to having had under his supervision a staff of approximately 60 persons, 27 of whom were university graduates.
Difficulties arose, the applicant continued, after the transfer in 1998 of Ms. Edwina Leacock from the Ministry of Finance to fill the post of Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture. According to the applicant, Ms. Leacock is an accountant by training and never worked in the Ministry of Agriculture before. It fell to him to meet with her frequently, to offer guidance and to have consultations on various matters. He described the relationship between Ms. Leacock and himself as being quite good at the inception, but went on to say that towards the end of 1998 her attitude towards him started changing.
The applicant recounted in his affidavit filed on 1st March, 2001 the following incidents and practices, among others, of Ms. Leacock:
-
(a) Omitting to invite him to the meetings of the Programme and Recurrent Estimates Committee at which budget proposals were considered. Ms. Leacock invited two of the applicant's subordinates instead. (The applicant wrote Ms. Leacock by letter dated 20th July, 1998, expressing his concern over his omission from the Committee).
-
(b) Refusing in 1999 to attend meetings of the same Committee held under the chairmanship of the applicant although her attendance thereat was crucial to its functioning. (The applicant wrote the Minister by letter of 11 May, 1999 about y the refusal of Ms. Leacock (and the Chief Technical Officer) to attend the meetings).
-
(c) The Minister having summoned both the applicant and Ms. Leacock to discuss the matter, Ms Leacock apologising in the presence of the Minister but, having left the meeting, berating the applicant and accusing him of trying to embarrass her. On this occasion, threatening the applicant to ensure that he is not promoted so long as she holds the post of Permanent Secretary in that Ministry.
-
(d) In breach of established practice and public service protocol, recommending personnel from the applicant's department for overseas conferences without referring to or notifying the applicant. Some of these selectees began bypassing the applicant and reporting directly to Ms. Leacock. This led to dissension among the applicant's subordinates. It also disrupted the management of the department.
-
(e) Bypassing the applicant and forwarding directly to the applicant's deputy invitations to the meetings of the draft estimates committee.
-
(f) Generally bypassing the applicant and establishing direct lines of communication with his subordinates.
-
(g) Bypassing the applicant and inviting his deputy to the inter-departmental meetings for the 1999 budget draft estimates.
-
(h) In further breach of established public service practice and protocol, finalising responses by the Minister to questions raised in Parliament by inviting and collaborating with a junior member of staff in the applicant's department rather than the applicant.
-
(i) Creating an ‘ad hoc’ committee to manage the Ministry's computerization vote, which function was formerly performed by the applicant. The applicant was left accountable for this vote, but was excluded from the decision-making process regarding it.
The applicant pointed to the fact that he acted as Director from July, 1996 to January, 2001, that is four and one-half years, but was not confirmed in the post, whereas both the acting Director, Land and Water Development and the Deputy Director, Land and Water Development, who were acting for shorter periods than that of the applicant, were confirmed. The applicant exhibited to his affidavit a memorandum dated 18th January, 2000 (“A.S.4”) from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources, indicating that the funds were available for filling all three vacant offices.
Combining the fact that he was the most senior of the three acting officers, and Ms. Leacock having told him on more than one occasion that as long as she was Permanent Secretary she would never recommend him to the Public Service Commission for confirmation or promotion, the applicant formed the view that the two events were linked.
The refusal of Ms. Leacock to renew the contract of Ms. Janet Rezende, Administrative Assistant with responsibility for the National Parks and Watershed Project, despite her satisfactory performance and commendation for her past work in the post, has been attributed by the applicant to be part of the vendetta by Ms. Leacock against him.
Another complaint of the applicant is that on 13th May, 1999, just two days after he had written the Minister complaining about Miss Leacock's refusal to attend the meetings of the Estimates Committee under his chairmanship, and after their meeting with the Minister, Ms. Leacock lodged a complaint with the Public Service Commission. She left the Ministry on 5th July, 1999. It is the applicant's averment that this complaint stands in the way of his being promoted.
The occurrence that gave rise directly to the instant proceedings consists of an exchange of letters involving the applicant and Ms. Leacock. On 3rd March, 1999, Ms. Leacock, as Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Marine Resources, wrote a memorandum to the Minister and copied it to the Agriculture Officer IV, the Human Resource Manager, and the applicant in the following terms:
FROM Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Agriculture
Land & Marine Resources
TO Honourable Minister
DATED 3RD March, 1999
SUBJECT: Review of the Planning Division
I enclose the review of the Planning Division for your attention.
I also enclose the comments of the Ag. Director of Agricultural Planning, Mr. Alvin Seereeram. With respect to these comments, I am to advise that this review was done through discussions with Messrs. King, Seereeram, Murray, Deane and Ms. Yearwood (one meeting). Messrs. King, Seereeram and I were present at all meetings to discuss the division. Therefore, for Mr. Seereeram to say that he had no input in the Draft structure is a blatant untruth. I am amazed that a senior officer could be so dishonest.
The weaknesses in the Division have been pointed out in the first paragraph of my memorandum to you (enclosed). The structure is meant to put some order in the operation of the division. Mr: Seereeram is content to have every member of the division reporting directly to him so that nobody else in the Division can supervise or monitor: When no one else is allowed to know what the other is doing it leads to chaos. He continues to use the qualifications of two officers (maybe three) out of a staff of some fifty persons as a major issue for the performance of the Division. The staff is just not utilized properly.
With respect to item (x) in his letter, I would think that any manager worth his stuff will be identifying the issues to be addressed and assigning duties/responsibilities accordingly.
If Mr: Seereeram thinks that restructuring the Planning Division is premature then I have strong reservations about his being in charge of Policy and Planning for the agriculture sector.
Sgd. Edwina Leacock
Permanent Secretary
c.c. AO IV(P)
Human Resource Manage
Mr. Seereeram
On 6th May, 1999, the applicant wrote a...
To continue reading
Request your trial