The Appellant joined the Respondent on 2 October 1990 as a driver. In disregard of instructions to park a motor vehicle at the university premises, the Appellant proceeded on personal errands. He then got involved in an accident and admitted all charges against him on appearance before the Registrar’s Departmental Disciplinary Committee (RDDC). The RDDC then referred the matter to the Respondent’s Main Disciplinary Committee (MDC) for consideration. The MDC held that the recommendations made by the RDDC with regard to the hearing were not clear. The matter was then referred back to the RDDC who maintained that the recommendations it had made were clear. Consequently, the RDDC by-passed the MDC and dismissed the Appellant from employment. The Appellant made several unfruitful appeals to the Vice Chancellor against this decision. When the Appellant brought the matter before the High court, the trial Judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim for damages for unfair dismissal. He then appealed against this decision.
Held:
1. Procedural rules are part of conditions of service and not statutory. Where it is disputed that an employee committed an offence for which the appropriate sentence is dismissal, no injustice arises for failure to comply with the laid down procedure. in the contract of service. The employee therefore has no claim on that ground for wrongful dismissal or a declaration that a dismissal is a nullity.
2. Since the Appellant was found guilty of a dismissible offence of dishonest conduct, his dismissal is upheld. The Appellant has not suffered any injustice as a result of his case not being considered by the Main Disciplinary Committee. The correspondence on record between the Appellant and the office of the Vice-Chancellor showed that his case was considered extensively on appeal.
3. The cases of Zambia National Provident Fund v Yekweniya Mbiniwa Chirwa and Undi Phiri v Bank of Zambia are still good law.
