Obeyesekere, J

1) This appeal arises from a judgment delivered by the High Court of the North Central Province holden in Anuradhapura [the High Court] on 26^th July 2022. While the questions of law have been reproduced in paragraph 17 below, the primary issue that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the High Court erred in law when it failed to order the reinstatement in service of the Applicant – Appellant – Appellant [the Applicant] in spite of the finding of the Labour Tribunal, with which the High Court agreed, that the termination of the services of the Applicant was unfair.

Facts in brief

2) By letter dated 30th September 2004, the Respondent – Respondent – Respondent [the Respondent] had appointed the Applicant to the post of Accountant with effect from 1st October 2004 [V1]. Her services had been confirmed on 1st October 2007 by letter dated 25th September 2007 [V2]. Pursuant to approval being granted by the Department of Management Services for the cadre positions of the Respondent, the Applicant had been issued with a fresh letter of appointment to the same post of Accountant with effect from 1st January 2009 [V3].

3) Pursuant to an anonymous complaint followed by the findings of a preliminary investigation, the Applicant had been placed on compulsory leave on 12th December 2013 with half pay. It is admitted that the Applicant had an unblemished record of service until then. The Applicant had been interdicted on 29th May 2014 and had been issued with a charge sheet containing the following thirteen charges:

(i) Conversion of salaries of employees of the Respondent contrary to Circular Nos. 30, 30(i) and 30(ii)/2006 issued by the Department of Management Services;

(ii) As a result of the said irregular conversion of salaries, a sum of Rs. 5,286,235 had been overpaid as salaries to the employees of the Respondent, thereby causing a loss to the Respondent, for which loss the Applicant is responsible;

(iii) As a result of acting contrary to the said Circulars, the Applicant had received an additional sum of Rs. 378,470 as salary for the period of 1st January 2007 to 30^th September 2009;

(iv) Drawing a sum of Rs. 54,948 as fuel allowance for which allowance the Applicant was not entitled;

(v) Drawing a sum of Rs. 90,000 as transport allowance for which allowance the Applicant was not entitled;

(vi) – (viii) Failure to recover a sum of Rs. 357,000 due as rental for premises given on lease;

(ix) Payment of salary increments to four employees over and above what has been approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent;

(x) Failure to recover a sum of Rs. 982,962 due as rental for premises given on lease;

(xi) Misappropriating monies belonging to the Respondent;

(xii) Acting contrary to directions and orders given by the Board of Directors of the Respondent;

(xiii) As a result of the above, bringing the Respondent and the Public Service to disrepute.

4) The Respondent did not allege that it had lost confidence in the Applicant as a result of the above charges, but instead alleged that the Applicant had brought the Respondent and the Public Service into disrepute as a result of her alleged acts of misconduct .

5) At the disciplinary inquiry that followed her interdiction, the Applicant was found guilty of eleven of the above charges, but the Applicant was exonerated of charge Nos. (xi) and (xiii) which alleged that she had misappropriated monies belonging to the Respondent, and bringing the Respondent and the Public Service to disrepute. The services of the Applicant were terminated by letter dated 24th October 2016 with effect from the date of her interdiction. She was 51 years of age at the time her services were terminated.

6) I must perhaps mention at this stage that the finding of not guilty in respect of the aforementioned two charges together with the absence of a charge relating to the Respondent having lost confidence in the Applicant are two factors that I shall consider when arriving at a decision in this matter.

Ap