Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant commenced this action by way of complaint dated and filed on the 29th day of June 2015. By an amended Statement of Facts filed on the 29th day of April 2016 with leave of court, the Claimant claimed the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is unlawful having not followed the due process of the law and therefore null, void and of no effect. 2. An Order reinstating the Claimant to his position as he then was, and for the restoration of all steps, grade levels, promotion, rights, privileges or allowances missed by the Claimant from October, 2013 till the date judgment is delivered in this matter. 3. An award of Specific Damages accruing from Claimant's accumulated monthly salaries from October, 2013 till the date of judgment of this Honourable Court, calculated at N422,772.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Naira) per month being the Claimant's last salary. Other necessary originating processes were filed by the Claimant in support of his case. The Defendant filed an amended Statement of defence along with its defence processes on 24th October 2016. The Claimant upon receipt, filed a Reply on the 16th day of November 2016. These processes were duly regularized, preliminary applications were also duly taken and resolved, and the matter proceeded to hearing. Hearing commenced on the 13th day of December 2016. The parties called one witness on each side. While the Claimant testified for himself as CW1, one Mr. Christopher Ofoha, the Chief Internal Auditor of the Imo State University Teaching Hospital testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing was concluded on the 4th day of July 2017, and the court ordered parties to comply with the rules of court by filing their respective final written addresses. In compliance, the Defendant filed its final address on 28th October 2017. The Claimant’s address was filed on 1st November 2017, and the Defendant exercised its right to file a Reply on points of Law on the 24th day of November 2017. The addresses were regularized and duly adopted on the 23rd day of January 2018. DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS In the Defendant’s Final Written Address filed on 23rd October 2017, Counsel formulated one issue for determination thus: Whether the Claimant was rightly dismissed by the Defendant. Counsel started by objecting to the admissibility of Exhibit L, having earlier indicated his intention to raise same at address stage. In the alternative counsel urged the court not to accord any probative value to the said Exhibit L which is a letter purportedly written and signed by the Director (Promotion)-Musa Saleh, on behalf of the Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission. According to counsel, the said Exhibit 'L' is a public document, by virtue of Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011; yet the Claimant did not obtain a certified true copy of same. Relying on DANA IMPLEX LTD. vs. AWUKAM (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 311) 1924 at 1940, counsel argued that the best evidence of proof of a public document is by producing the said public document or by tendering a certified copy of same. The argument of counsel is that by the Claimant tendering a photocopy of the document, rather than a certified true copy, the document is inadmissible. This is in light of the fact that there is no indication on Exhibit L, showing that it emanated from either the Federal Civil Service Commission or Institute of Certified Public Accountant of Nigeria, or that it was addressed to the Claimant. In the event that the Court finds that Exhibit L is admissible, counsel urged the court not to ascribe probative value to it, because the Claimant is not the maker. It is trite that if a person who is not the maker of a document tenders the document, the Court should not attach any probative value to the document, because the person not being the maker of the document, cannot answer questions arising from the document. See MAERSK vs. WINLINE (NIG.) LTD. [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 808) 672 at 686. On the main issue, counsel rehashed the facts of the case as well as the reliefs the Claimant seeks. Counsel referred to Exhibit B tendered by the Claimant being his letter of appointment, and contended, citing the contents thereof, that the Claimant’s appointment was statutory and regulated by the Imo State Public Service Rules. It is therefore the Imo State Public Service Rules that should be considered in order to ascertain whether or not, the Claimant was lawfully dismissed. Citing the case of P.H.C.N. PLC vs. OFFOELO (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) 1 at 25, counsel submitted that where the terms and conditions of a contract of service are created by Statute, same must be complied with when the contract is being brought to an end. According to counsel, the relevant legislation to be considered in the extant case is Rule 04306,(i),(ii),(iii) and (iv) of the Imo State Public Service Rules, which deals with the method of dismissal of an officer in the Imo State Civil Service. Counsel copiously cited the said provisions as follows: Rule 04306 i-iv: “04306- Unless the method of dismissal is otherwise provided for, in these rules, an officer in the Imo State Civil Service may be dismissed by Imo State Civil Service Commission only in accordance with this Rule: i. The officer shall be notified in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to discipline him. The query should be precise and to the point. It must relate the circumstances of the offence, the rule and regulation which the officer has broken and the likely penalty. In serious cases which are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such documents. The officer shall be called upon to state in writing, within the period specified in the query grounds upon which he replies to exculpate himself. ii. The query, or preliminary letter, shall be in the format shown below: iii. If the officer submits his representation and the Imo State Civil Service Commission is not satisfied that he has exculpated himself, and considers that the officer should be dismissed, it shall take such action accordingly. Should the officer however fail to furnish any representations within the time fixed, the commission may take such action against the officer as it deems appropriate. iv. If upon considering the representation of the officer the commission is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed from the service but deserves some other punishment, it shall impose on the officer such punishment as it considers appropriate.” Counsel submitted that the above stipulated powers of the State Civil Service Commission can be delegated in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, citing Rule 04102 which provides as follows: “04102: The power to dismiss and to exercise disciplinary control over officers in the Imo State Civil Service is vested in the Imo State Civil Service Commission, This power may be delegated to any member of the Commission or any officer in the Imo State Civil Service.” Based on Rule 04102, counsel submitted that the power to carry out such disciplinary control in the instant case was delegated to the Defendant, who in compliance with the said provisions, on 30/10/2013 issued Exhibit Q1 (a query), to the Claimant and requested him to respond to the allegations contained therein within 48 hours. According to counsel, the query was consequent upon Exhibit 'O' which is the report of the internal audit committee set up by the Defendant. In order to appreciate the allegations leveled against him and to satisfy the stipulated provisions of the Imo State Public Service Rules according to counsel, the Claimant was given Exhibit 'O' to assist him to properly articulate his answer to the query, to which he responded in writing in Exhibit Q2 dated 7/10/2013. Being dissatisfied with Exhibit Q2, the Defendant issued Exhibits Q3 (reminder) to the Claimant, which he answered in Exhibit Q4. It is counsel’s submission from the foregoing, that the Defendant complied with the extant provisions of the Imo State Public Service Rules and followed due process in dismissing the Claimant, in line with the dictates of the law as provided for in Rule 04306 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Imo State Public Service Rules. Counsel contended that the averments of the Defendant bordering on the queries and the allegations levied in them are deemed established and therefore need no further proof; because the Claimant failed to specifically traverse those averments. See OSHODI vs. EYIFUNMI (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 684), 298 at 334. In the absence of any specific traverse by the Claimants, counsel urged the court to deem the defendant's averments on the issuance of queries issued to the Claimant and the related averments, as established. Counsel went further that there is an erroneous assumption that there should be an investigation by a law enforcement agency or court or setting up of a panel to look into a disciplinary case before dismissal of any Public Officer. Such requirement is not stipulated in Rule 04306 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Imo State Public Service Rules in dismissal of Public Officers. It has been established in IMONIKHE vs. UNITY BANK PLC (2012) 3 NILR 25 at 54, that raising an allegation against an employee by way of query and the employee answering the query satisfies the basic requirement of fair hearing. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Defendant complied with the extant provisions of the Imo State Public Service Rules; and the Claimant was rightly dismissed from the employment of the Defendant. CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS Learned Counsel for the Claimant in his final address filed on 1/11/2017, responded to the objection on the admissibility of Exhibit L. He submitted that Exhibit L is not a public document requiring certification. The hallmark of a public document is its openness that anyone can go and demand that a certified copy be given to him on paying a prescribed fee. See GOV. EKITI STATE vs. OJO (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 95 at 129. The Coordinator Institute of Certified Public Accountant of Nigeria Ebonyi State Chapter to whom Exhibit L was addressed has not been shown to be a public office or official, who is under legal obligation to furnish a certified true copy of Exhibit L. It is counsel’s contention that the document has probative value, because it was not challenged as to its authenticity, and there was no question put to the Claimant as regards the document that he said he could not answer. Counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibit L is admissible and enjoys full probative value. Counsel proceeded to propose two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the purported dismissal of the Claimant is in accordance with the Imo State Public Service Rules. 2. Whether the Defendant provided any justification for the reasons given by it for the dismissal of the Claimant. On issue one, counsel submitted that the Defendant had copiously quoted part of the relevant provisions of the Public Service Rules under which it purported to dismiss the Claimant, but had conveniently left out the concluding portions of the said Rule 04306, which counsel for the Claimant reproduced as follows: Rule 04306 iv-xii: “v. Where necessary, the Commission may set up a Board of Inquiry which shall consist of not less than three persons one of whom shall be appointed chairman by the Commission. The members of the board shall be selected with due regard to the status of the officer involved in the disciplinary case and to the nature of the complaint which is the subject of inquiry. The Head of the officer's department shall not be a member of the board; vi. The officer shall be informed that, on a specific day. The question of his dismissal shall be brought before the board and he shall be required to appear before it to defend himself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the board; vii. Where witnesses are called by the board to give evidence before it, the officer shall be entitled to put questions to the witnesses and no documentary evidence shall be used against the officer unless he has previously been supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto; viii. If during the course of the Inquiry further grounds for dismissal are disclosed, and the Imo State Civil Service Commission thinks it fit to proceed against the officer upon such grounds, the officer shall, by the direction of the Commission, be furnished with a written statement thereof and the same steps shall be taken as prescribed above in respect of the original grounds; ix The board having inquired into the matter shall make a report to the Commission. If the Commission considers that the report should be amplified in any respect or that further inquiry is desirable, it may refer any matter back to the board for further inquiry or report. The Commission shall not itself hear witnesses; x. If upon considering the report of the board together with the evidence and all material documents relating to the case, the Commission is of the opinion that the officer shall be dismissed, such action shall immediately be taken; xi. If the Commission does not approve the officer's dismissal and does not consider that any penalty should be imposed, the officer shall be reinstated forthwith and be entitled to the full amount of salary denied him if he was interdicted or suspended; xii. If upon considering the report of the board the Commission is of the opinion that the officer does not deserve to be dismissed but that the proceedings disclosed grounds for requiring him to retire, the Commission shall, without further proceedings, direct accordingly.” According to counsel, exhibit Q1 did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 04306, because it did not state the rule allegedly broken by the Claimant necessitating any disciplinary action or the likely penalty. Also, the Public Service Rule 030402 under which Exhibit Q1 was issued does not exist. This, counsel states, makes Exhibit Q1 incompetent. Therefore, all other processes based on it are void. Counsel was in agreement with the submission of Learned Counsel for the Defendant in paragraph 4.21 of the Defendant’s final address that where the terms and conditions of an employment contract are created by statute, same must be complied with when the contract is being brought to an end. See the case of IDERIMA vs. R.S.C.S.C. (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378 at 400 where the Supreme Court held that “It is well settled that if any disciplinary action is to be taken pursuant to any statute, law or rule, there must be full compliance with them or any of them as required before such disciplinary action can be properly based or justified.” Also, counsel submitted that the Defendant Counsel’s submission that it was unnecessary to set up the board of inquiry prescribed in Rule 04306(v) is unfounded because, in pages 11 (2.12.2), 12 and 17 (3.1.2) of Exhibit O, it was not recommended that the Claimant be dismissed. Instead it recommended investigation by the Board as it related to the Claimant, and the investigation could not have been implemented without setting up a Board of Inquiry. It is counsel’s submission that the Internal Audit Committee, was not the Board of Inquiry envisaged by the PSR. The Internal Audit Committee had specific terms of reference as follows: “TERMS OF REFERENCE …the Committee was mandated to: ? Investigate and determine the sources of revenue as well as total revenue generated by the Hospital from the month of January, 2012 to 3rd March, 2013. ? Determine the extent of funding through Government subventions for the above stated periods ? Determine all areas/sources of revenue generated and the expenditure patterns with a view to identifying areas of loopholes or lapses. ? Determine other ways of increasing the hospital IGR with a set target of N40 million per month and constraining factors, namely staff, environmental and equipment in proper revenue generation.” Counsel submitted that none of these specific terms or reference could in any way be read to accommodate a recommendation for the dismissal of the Claimant. The Defendant in Exhibit Q3, after rehashing its understanding of the contents of Exhibit O, stated thus: “In the light of the foregoing therefore, the present board is seriously handicapped because you have refused to answer to all these allegations noted above.” At this juncture according to counsel, the only option available to the Defendant was to set up the Board of Inquiry as required by the Rules. See IDERIMA vs. R.S.C.S.C. (supra) at 401. In the absence of any investigation of the said allegations against the Claimant, the Defendant could not in the comfort of its office, conclude that the allegations were established, culminating in the dismissal or other disciplinary measures against the Claimant. Counsel urged the court to hold that the purported dismissal of the Claimant was not in accordance with the Imo State Public Service Rules and resolve the first issue identified in this address in favour of the Claimant. Regarding issue two, counsel contended that the Defendant did not attempt to discharge the burden of proof on it to justify the reasons given for the dismissal of the Claimant. The reasons alleged the commission of crime by the Claimant, and Section 135 of the Evidence Act places the burden of proof of the allegations against the Claimant upon the Defendant, and the proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The Defendant offered no proof of the allegation that the Claimant diverted certain funds of the Defendant to himself. The evidence of the Defendant's sole witness was not helpful because it was “demolished” under cross-examination. Again, it is the submission of counsel relying on NIGERGATE LTD. vs. NIGER STATE GOV'T (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 907) 342 at 363, that the fact that this case is a civil matter does not relieve the Defendant of the responsibility on it because the position of the law is always that where an allegation of the commission of a crime is made in a civil case, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the allegation is on the person asserting. Counsel urged the court to hold that the reasons for the Claimant’s dismissal were not established. Counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs claimed because the dismissal of the Claimant whose employment enjoyed statutory protection was not in accordance with the Imo State Public Service Rules, and the Defendant did not discharge the burden on it to justify the reasons given by it beyond reasonable doubt. DEFENDANT’S REPLY On the 24th day of November 2017, the Defendant’s counsel filed a Reply to the Claimant Counsel’s final address. Therein, submitted that the excerpts of Rule 04306 highlighted by the Claimant is of no moment and does not obliterate the fact that the Defendant has complied with the relevant provisions of the Imo State Public Service Rules which according to counsel, is Rule 04306 (i-iv). According to counsel, those portions of Rule 04306 of the Imo State Public Service Rules reproduced by the Claimant deals with cases where the Defendant considers it necessary to set up a board of inquiry to the allegations before the dismissal of an officer. The term “where necessary” stated at the beginning of the reproduced paragraph is a clear indication that the setting up of a Board of Inquiry is discretionary, and it does not remove the fact that the Defendant has complied with the relevant provisions of the Imo State Public service rules, that is Rule 04306 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) in dismissing the Claimant. Similarly, counsel argued that the claimant counsel's contention that the defendant did not comply with the requirement as regards the format of the query or preliminary letter in the issuance of Exhibit Q1 This complaint of the Claimant according to counsel, is centered primarily on the form of the query instead of its substance. Exhibit Q1 in summary, stated the allegations against the Claimant; the need for the Claimant to make representations in order to extricate himself from the allegations in accordance with the Rules and the time within which to react to the query. The Claimant in his reaction through Exhibit Q2 did not complain of being misled in respect of the Defendant's allegations against him in his response or the failure of the Defendant to comply strictly with the format of the query. It is counsel’s contention that assuming the Defendant did not comply with the format of the query, the Claimant has waived his right to complain, having responded vide Exhibit Q2. He cannot raise that issue at the stage of final address. Also, contrary to the Claimant’s counsel’s understanding, Exhibit O was the plank upon which Exhibit Q1 was issued to the Claimant. The said Exhibit 'O' tendered by the Claimant found that he misappropriated funds. It was on the strength of those findings that the Defendant issued Exhibit Q1 to the Claimant. According to counsel, the Claimant clearly misconstrued the essence of Exhibit 'O' which was not a report of any Board of Inquiry, but a report of the Internal Audit Committee constituted to look into the revenue of the Defendant. In the light of the foregoing, counsel urged the Court to discountenance the argument of the Claimant’s counsel and hold that the Claimant was rightly dismissed from employment of the Defendant. COURT’S DECISION Having heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties in their final written addresses, I will now determine the case. But first, let me set out the facts of the case. The case of the Claimant, as stated in his pleading and in his evidence as CW1, is that the Defendant is a body established by the Imo State University Teaching Hospital Law No.9 of 2002. The Claimant was initially employed by the Imo State Hospital Management Board in a letter dated 3rd May 1985 but after the establishment of the Defendant, he was employed by the Defendant as a Principal Accountant in a letter dated 3rd May 2004. The Claimant’s service in both employments was statutory and it is part of the Public Service of Imo State governed by the Public Service Rules. Following his appointment by the Defendant, his service was transferred from Imo State Hospital Management Board to the Defendant. His years of service in the former employment were carried over to the Defendant’s service. On 6th May 2009, he was promoted to Assistant Chief Accountant on CONTISS 12 Step 9 with financial effect from 1st January 2009. He requested for harmonization of his appointment in line with his years of service and it was granted vide a letter dated 5th April 2012. Based on the approval, the Claimant’s position became that of a Chief Accountant with effect from 1st January 2007 with financial effect from 1st January 2009 as stated in the letter of 6th May 2009. The Claimant’s entitlements were accordingly processed and he was paid the difference between the position of Chief Accountant and the former position of Assistant Chief Accountant. On 10th June 2013, the Claimant was directed to refund the sum of N1,800,000.00 paid to him and to proceed on a non-punitive indefinite leave until the sum is refunded. The Claimant refused to make the refund and on 26th May 2015, he was dismissed from service on grounds of fraud, financial misappropriation among others. The Claimant was not investigated on the alleged misconducts by law enforcement agents or the court, neither was he invited before any panel set up under the Civil Service Rules to defend himself. The Claimant’s salary at the time of his suspension was N422,772.00 per month. He has not been paid salary since October 2013. The Claimant was to be promoted to the rank of Director of Accounts on CONTISS 15 since 2014 but his illegal dismissal prevented it. The case of the Defendant, as pleaded in the amended statement of defence and stated in the evidence of DW1, Christopher Ofoha, who is the Chief Internal Auditor of the Defendant, is that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant from 3/5/2004 to 26/5/2015 when he was dismissed. The Claimant was promoted by the Defendant but it was as a result of misrepresentation of facts made by him to the Defendant. The harmonization was also granted in error. The Claimant’s promotion/harmonization letter did not indicate financial effective date but the Claimant, on his own, processed and paid himself the arrears without approval from the Defendant. The vouchers did not pass through Audit department and were not counter-signed by the Chief Medical Director. The Claimant misappropriated the sum of N1,800,000.00 from the Defendant. In 2013, the Defendant set up an Internal Audit Committee with terms of reference. The committee sat several times and it invited the necessary persons to its inquiry. The Claimant appeared before the committee several times and he made responses which were not justified. The committee made recommendations to the Board and based on the recommendations, the Board made the resolution for the Claimant to proceed on non punitive leave pending the refund of N1,800,000.00. The issue of fraud was also raised by the Committee in its report and based on the allegations, the Defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant on 30th October 2013 demanding explanations for the allegations found by the Committee against the Claimant. The Defendant deliberated on the matter and directed the immediate stoppage of the salary of the Claimant who was then on suspension, in a memo dated 2/12/2013. By a letter dated 21/1/2014, the Defendant also demanded from the Claimant, a response to the allegations contained in the letter. The Claimant refused to respond to the letter and the Defendant sent him a reminder dated 24/1/2014. Pursuant to the reminder, the Claimant wrote his response dated 24/1/2014. The Defendant heard from the Claimant and deliberated on his case before dismissing the Claimant through a letter dated 26/5/2015. The Claimant would still have been a Principal Accountant in the Defendant’s employment and not a Director of Accounts if he were still in the employment. Promotion is not automatic in the civil service. The Claimant was wrongly paid the sum of N422,722.00 as monthly salary at the time he was suspended. The Claimant is not entitled to any salary as he was rightly dismissed from service in accordance with scheme of service. Having carefully considered the facts pleaded by the parties, the evidence adduced by them and the submissions of the respective counsels in the final written addresses, the sole issues which is to be determined in this matter is whether the Claimant has proved that his dismissal from the employment of the Defendant was unlawful to entitle him to the reliefs he sought in this suit. In his first relief, the Claimant sought for a declaration that his dismissal by the Defendant is unlawful having not followed the due process of the law and therefore null, void and of no effect. Upon going through the pleading and evidence of the Claimant, the allegations he made against his dismissal is that he was dismissed from service on 26th May 2015 on grounds of fraud, financial misappropriation among others. He also said he was not investigated on the allegation by law enforcement agents or the court neither was he invited before any panel set up under the Civil Service Rules to defend himself. From the case of the Claimant, it seems to me that the grounds he founded his claim in this case are lack of fair hearing and non-compliance with the Civil Service Rules in his dismissal. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amended statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded the facts that he was employed by the Defendant, a body established by the Imo State University Teaching Hospital Law No.9 of 2002. The Claimant also said that his employment with the Defendant was a service in the Public Service of Imo State and it was governed by the Public Service Rules. In paragraph 1 of his amended statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded his employment letter. The Claimant’s employment letter is in evidence as Exhibit B dated 3rd May 2004. It stipulated at paragraph (g) thereof that the Claimant’s employment will be subject to all conditions of service stipulated in the Public Service Rules and Regulations of Imo State Government; all rules of Imo State University Teaching Hospital and other Government Regulations and Instructions. By virtue of these terms of the employment in Exhibit B, the Claimant is a civil servant in the Imo State Civil service and his employment was regulated by the Public Service Rules of Imo State. Going by the pleading and evidence of the Claimant, he has established the fact that his employment with the Defendant was governed by the Public Service Rules of Imo State. The Defendant too pleaded in paragraph 5 (c) of the amended statement of defence that the Claimant’s employment was governed by the Imo State Public Service Rules. In the final written addresses of counsels for the parties, learned counsels on both sides cited various provisions of the Imo State Public Service Rules in their arguments as to whether or not its provisions were complied with in the dismissal of the Claimant from service. From the facts and submissions of counsels, it is clear that there is no dispute between the parties that the Imo State Public Service Rules applies to the Claimant’s employment. The Public Service Rules is recognized as a subsidiary legislation and it confers on the Civil Servants the status of employment protected by statute. In FUT, YOLA vs. MAIWUYA (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 677) 753 at 762 it was held that: “Civil Service Rules confers on public servants a legal status that goes beyond that of ordinary master and servant relationship. They cannot therefore be properly or legally removed from their employment without strict adherence to the civil service rules”. Therefore, the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was service in the Imo State Civil Service and had statutory flavour. Although the Claimant pleaded that his employment is regulated by the Imo State Public Service Rules, but he did not tender it in evidence. However, the Defendant, through DW1, tendered Exhibits S1 and S2 in evidence. These are the Public Service Rules of the Federation and Scheme of Service for civil servants in the Federal Civil Service. I have mentioned above that the employees of the Defendant are civil servants in the Imo State Civil Service. Therefore, the Claimant is not a civil servant in the public service of the Federation. Exhibits S1 and S2 do not regulate the employment of civil servants in the civil service of Imo State and consequently, do not apply to this case. The Imo State Public Service Rules being a subsidiary legislation, this court can therefore take judicial notice of it. It is trite that where the terms and conditions of a contract of employment are specifically provided for by statute, it is said to be an employment with statutory flavour or contract protected by statute. In other words, an employment with statutory flavour is one where the procedure for employment and discipline are governed by statute. See OLORUNTOBA-OJU vs. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 497) 1 at 42; OKWUSIDI vs. LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 632) 1774 at 1786. For the Claimant to be validly removed from his employment, the provisions of the Imo State Public Service Rules on dismissal of civil servants must be strictly complied with. Having now been determined that the Claimant’s employment was one under the Public Service Rules of Imo State, the issue at this point is whether the dismissal of the Claimant from service was done in accordance with the Imo State Public Service Rules and whether he was given fair hearing before he was dismissed. The Claimant’s dismissal letter is in evidence as Exhibit F dated 26th May 2015. The letter was written by the Defendant to the Claimant. It informed the Claimant that the Board of the Defendant at its meeting of 26th May 2015 considered the case of Fraud, financial misappropriation, dishonesty, indiscipline and negligence of duty and directed that the Claimant be dismissed from service with effect from 11th June 2013. The Claimant was consequently dismissed from the service of the Defendant. From the content of Exhibit F, the Claimant was dismissed for reason of various offences he was alleged to have committed and the decision to dismiss the Claimant was taken by the Board of the Defendant in a meeting held on 26th May 2015. Where it is intended for the dismissal of a civil servant in the public service of Imo State, the relevant provision of the Imo State Public Service Rules is Rule 04306. The Rule provides that officers in the Imo State Civil Service may be dismissed by the Imo State Civil Service Commission and the dismissal must be done only in accordance with the provision of the Rule. The Rule further contains the procedure to be followed before the dismissal of an officer from the Imo State Civil Service can be effected. The procedure is that the officer must be given a query of the allegations against him and given access to documents or reports used against him; be given an opportunity to respond in writing stating the grounds upon which he exculpates himself; upon considering the response of the officer, if the Imo State Civil Service Commission is not satisfied, it may dismiss the officer. But where necessary, the Civil Service Commission may set up a Board of Inquiry; the officer shall be invited or required to appear before the board to defend himself, and shall be entitled to call witnesses; be entitled to ask questions from the witnesses called by the board and the board, after inquiring into the matter, shall make a report to the Civil Service Commission; if upon considering the report of the board together with the evidence and all material documents relating to the case, the Civil Service Commission is of the opinion that the officer shall be dismissed, such action shall immediately be taken. The opening paragraph of the Rule has made it clear without any ambiguity that the power to dismiss an officer in the Imo State Civil Service lies with the Imo State Civil Service Commission and the dismissal must be done only in accordance with the provision of the Rule. See also Rule 04102. In the Claimant’s case, he was dismissed by the Board of the Defendant as clearly shown in the dismissal letter. It is thus clear that the Claimant was not dismissed from service by the Imo State Civil Service Commission. This defect in the dismissal of the Claimant by the appropriate authority was not lost on the Defendant’s counsel that was why counsel submitted in paragraph 4.23 of the Defendant’s written address that the power to carry out such disciplinary action of dismissal on the Claimant was delegated to the Defendant. Let me mention that although Rule 04102 of the Imo State Public Service Rules permits the Civil Service Commission to delegate its power of discipline or dismissal to members of the Commission or any officer in the Imo State Civil service, the delegation cannot be implied. There must be evidence of actual or express delegation of the power of dismissal to the Board of the Defendant. See BAMGBOYE vs. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 32) 12 at 51. There is no such evidence presented in this case. The dismissal letter did not state that the Board dismissed the Claimant in exercise of the power delegated to it by the Civil Service Commission. Furthermore, the Defendant did not plead anywhere or give evidence to the effect that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Board was in exercise of the power delegated to the Board by the Civil Service Commission. I therefore find no substance in the argument of the Defendant’s counsel. The Claimant was not dismissed by the Civil Service Commission and the Board of the defendant who dismissed the claimant has not shown it has the authority of the Civil Service Commission to dismiss the Claimant. The dismissal of the Claimant by the Board of the Defendant is contrary to the provision of the Public Service Rules. This defect in the dismissal of the Claimant renders the dismissal null and void. The procedure in Rule 04306 is meant to give the officer facing the disciplinary action fair hearing before dismissal. A public servant can only be validly removed from service if the procedure prescribed by the Public Service Rules is followed. The Claimant asserted that he was not invited before any panel set up under the Civil Service Rules to defend himself. This allegation shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that the claimant was given fair hearing in accordance with the Public Service Rules before he was dismissed. According to DW1, in 2013, the Defendant set up an Internal Audit Committee who sat several times and the Claimant appeared before the committee several times and he made responses which were not justified. Based on the recommendations of the Committee to the Board of the Defendant, the Board made a resolution for the Claimant to proceed on non punitive leave pending the refund of N1,800,000.00. The Committee report also raised some allegations of fraud against the Claimant and upon which the Defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant on 30th October 2013 demanding explanations in respect of the allegations. The Defendant also wrote letters dated 21/1/2014 and 24/1/2014 to the Claimant demanding his response to the allegations contained in the letters. The Claimant eventually wrote his response dated 24/1/2014. The Defendant deliberated on the Claimant’s case and then dismissed him through a letter dated 26/5/2015. These are Exhibits P1, P2, P3 and P4. From the case of the Defendant, the allegations of fraud, financial misappropriation, dishonesty, indiscipline and negligence of duty against the Claimant arose from the report of the Internal Audit Committee. The only response the Claimant made to those allegations was his reply to query dated 24/1/2014. There was no time he was invited to face any panel to defend the allegations against him. The case of the Claimant was considered and a decision was taken to dismiss him on the basis of his reply only. After the queries issued to the Claimant, he ought to have been given a hearing before a panel of inquiry before he can be dismissed. This did not happen. The allegations made against the Claimant in the queries were weighty and were in the nature of criminal offences. The Claimant could not be lawfully and validly dismissed for these offences without a trial in court and/or affording him fair hearing by the Civil Service Commission. The conclusion is that the procedure in the Public Service Rules was not followed before the Claimant was dismissed from service. From the facts of this case, I find also that the Claimant was not given fair hearing by the Defendant before he was dismissed from the employment. Consequently, the dismissal of the Claimant from employment of the Defendant did not follow the proper procedure. The dismissal is therefore unlawful, null and void and it is hereby set aside. In OKEME vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, EDO STATE (2001) FWLR (Pt. 36) 873 at 884, it was held that where a civil servant is removed from office without recourse to or in the manner not in line with the applicable rules, the termination will be null and void. The Claimant has further sought an order of re-instatement and payment of his accumulated salaries. It is the law that where there is an improper removal of an employee from an employment protected by statute, the consequence is that the employee has not been removed from office. In other words, once dismissal or termination of employment is declared null and void, there is nothing legally standing in the way of the employee from having his or her job back with its attendant rights, benefits and privileges. See KWARA POLYTECHNIC ILORIN vs. OYEBANJI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 447) 141 at 199. In such a situation, the court has the power to order the reinstatement of the employee. The right to be reinstated is a right that follows a declaration that termination was unlawful, null and void. In the circumstance of this case where it has been found that the contract of employment is guided by statute, the Claimant is entitled to a consequential relief of reinstatement and payment of his outstanding salary from the time he was unlawfully dismissed from employment. See OMIDIORA vs. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 415) 1807; OKEME vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, EDO STATE (supra) AT 884 In the result, the Claimant’s claims succeed. The dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the Defendant on 11th June 2013 is hereby declared unlawful, null and void. In addition, I make the following orders: 1. An Order is hereby made re-instating the Claimant to his employment forthwith, and to be placed in the position he ought to be presently in the employment of the Defendant. 2. The Defendant is also ordered to calculate and pay to the Claimant all his accumulated salaries, allowances and other emoluments accruing to him from October 2013 till the date of this judgment. 3. Cost of N200,000.00 is also awarded to the Claimant against the Defendant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge