1. (a) The official was dismissed as a result of several transgressions including the lift incident in which she displayed gross dishonesty in dealing with it, unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, underperformance, and manipulation and inconsistent application of the Job Grading System.
(b) It is important to note that Minister’s locus standi to dismiss the concerned official was never questioned in this matter- Honourable Member, your allegations are therefore baseless.
(i) The above-mentioned transgressions which resulted in the department incurring unnecessary costs, including potential risk of litigation, clearly illustrate and justifies the need for consequence management, which were implemented and resulted in litigation.
Below are some of the reasons that necessitated consequence management:
(ii) The legal costs stand at R502 818.75- These include costs of the main application, application for leave to appeal, the application for the execution of the order of Court in terms of Section 18 (3) of Superior Courts Act, and initiation of a petition to the Judge President for leave to appeal.
2. The Department complied with section 18(3) of Superior Court Act and allowed her to return to work, whilst awaiting the decision on petition to the Judge President. She was moved to work in the Office of Director-General until the disciplinary process that was issued in 2019 and investigations into matters mentioned in paragraph 1 above are completed and/ or the petition is granted.