– commission, not OP must approve leave
Justice Diana Insanally yesterday dismissed an application which Supreme Court Registrar Sita Ramlal had filed last year against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) saying the court action was misconceived.

Ramlal had challenged the JSC in court over whether the body has the authority to discipline her for failing to report to the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary before she proceeded on extended leave and when she resumed duties back in 2008. The JSC through its chairman, Acting Chancellor Justice Carl Singh, had called on the registrar to appear before a tribunal in November 2008 to answer allegations of breaches of discipline.

But Ramlal refused saying she saw no reason why she should be disciplined, since, according to her, the leave had been approved by the Office of the President (OP) through Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS) Dr Roger Luncheon. She said OP was the office which she recognised as the authority to approve her leave and to which she must report on resumption of duties.

Justice Insanally said yesterday that Ramlal provided no evidence to support her claims that OP had granted the leave for a period noted in the application; additionally OP submitted no letter on her behalf. The judge also found that Ramlal had not disclosed to the court that she had previously applied to the JSC for leave, noting that the registrar had a legal duty to make a full disclosure to the court.

The judge ruled that approval of Ramlal’s leave falls within the jurisdiction of the JSC and pointed out that approval from OP for her to proceed on leave for a period of time was not enough to substantiate the claim the registrar had departed from the authority of the JSC. Justice Insanally said the JSC is the body lawfully entitled to grant Ramlal leave and to which she is to report on her resumption of duty.

Further, the judge stated that Ramlal was given an opportunity to appear before the commission and explain her actions which were being questioned, but that she failed to show up for the meeting.  She said too that Ramlal could have appeared before the commission since the tribunal was being convened for that purpose.

Speaking to the contention by Ramlal that the acting chancellor made a complaint against her and was also on the tribunal, Justice Insanally said there was no breach of natural justice on the part of the JSC because the acting chancellor made no complaint against her, adding that the commission has the authority to inquire about her leave.

Prior to Ramlal’s move to the court, the JSC had pointed out that she had taken 33 days unauthorized leave from the period May 9, 2008 to June 10, 2008; that she had failed to report to the acting chancellor when she resumed duty, and that she also departed Guyana on unauthorized leave for the period September 15, 2008 to September 25, 2008 and also from November 24, 2008 to December 5, 2008. But the registrar said she was not aware she was under any duty to formally report her resumption of duties to the acting chancellor.

On December 10, 2008 the JSC dispatched a letter to Ramlal informing her that she should appear before the commission to answer for her unauthorized leave for 33 days; her failure to report her resumption of duties to the acting chancellor and her unauthorized departure from Guyana for the period identified. Ramlal then filed her application a short while after.

Ramlal argued that the JSC acted in error and therefore without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking the decision to call upon her to answer allegations of breaches of discipline when it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the chancellor to grant her leave (to be spent within or outside Guyana) and when there is no legal duty for her to report her resumption of duties to the chancellor.