The High Court has refused to quash the dismissal of a clerical officer employed in An Garda Síochána, finding that the Commissioner acted within his authority and gave clear reasons for departing from a disciplinary appeal board’s recommendation.
The judgment, delivered by Kearns P. on 11 April 2013, concerns the Commissioner’s decision of 15 October 2012 to dismiss the officer with effect from 12 November 2012. The officer sought certiorari, an order quashing that decision, arguing that dismissal was disproportionate and that the Commissioner had not explained why he was departing from the board’s view.
The officer had pleaded guilty in October 2010 to an offence of possessing child pornography. The charge was later struck out after he paid a €2,500 contribution to the Rape Crisis Centre. In June 2012, the Civil Service Disciplinary Code Appeal Board found dismissal disproportionate and recommended a five-year increment deferral, a five-year bar on competitions and transfer to another Civil Service position.
The Commissioner nevertheless dismissed the officer, stating that he could not allow that type of conduct within An Garda Síochána. The Commissioner’s decision followed a review under paragraph 63 of the disciplinary code and representations from the officer.
Kearns P. held that the Commissioner was the appropriate authority and that the disciplinary process complied with the relevant procedures. The court found the Commissioner had addressed the right question and rationally considered the material before him. It also held that the board’s view was a recommendation: paragraph 65 expected it to be taken into account, while allowing a departure as an “exceptional event”. The judge said this meant an unusual or rare event, not that exceptional reasons had to be given. The Commissioner was entitled to regard the offence admitted by the officer as such an event.
The court also considered an alternative route: a claim to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It noted that the officer remained within the six-month period to give formal notice of such a claim, measured from the effective dismissal date. The judgment did not decide any such claim. Kearns P. refused the judicial review relief sought.