Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall this morning ruled that the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) which recommended disciplinary action against Town Clerk Royston King, resulting in his sacking, was unlawfully established and all of its decisions are null, void and of no effect.
As a result, King, who, had been dismissed for gross misconduct, remains Town Clerk with the status quo being that of September 21st, 2018 when King was sent on administrative leave.
Justice Morris-Ramlall premised her ruling on the argument that the Local Government Commission (LGC) acted unlawfully when it delegated the investigation to an entity which was not a local government organ or authority.
“The intention of the Local Government Commission Act is clear. The respondent [the LGC] is permitted to delegate its powers but only within the local government system,” the judge ruled.
Speaking with reporters after the ruling, King said he felt vindicated.
“I’m very happy. I have always exercised great faith in the judicial system. Today justice has been done and I have been vindicated,” King said.
King had been dismissed via a letter, dated January 23rd, 2019, that cited gross misconduct as the reason for the dismissal, which was based on the findings of the CoI.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in February, King made an application for several orders to be made by the court, including the quashing of the decision of the LGC to dismiss him from the post of Town Clerk for gross misconduct; reinstatement; and/or payment to him of all benefits inclusive of pension, gratuity and annual leave allowances until he reaches retirement age in January of 2020.
King had also asked for a declaration that the charge of gross misconduct and any other charges levelled against him which led to his dismissal are null and of no legal effect.
The grounds for his application include the “indecent haste” by the LGC in dismissing him, purportedly without a hearing on the recommendation of the CoI’s report. He also contended too that the LGC had no power to delegate its investigative functions to the CoI. He also contends that since at the time of being fired he had about ten months of service before reaching the retirement age he is entitled to “Pension, Gratuity and all other benefits, as if he was never summarily dismissed”.
