Download PDF
COURT’S JUDGMENT On May 30, 2014 the claimant filed this Complaint against the defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs: 1. Declaration that the suspension and continue suspension of the claimant is ultra vires, unlawful, wrong, illegal, unfair, unjust, malicious, unreasonable and/or blatant breach of the rules of the natural justice and the Constitution. 2. An order re-instating the claimant to his due position without any loss of remuneration, promotional benefits and/or advantages of any kind whatsoever. 3. The payment of the claimant salaries and entitlements from 1st September 2013 until this matter is determined and thereafter. 4. General and Exemplary Damages in the sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) for unlawful suspension and continue suspension of the claimant Other initiating processes were filed along with the complaint in line with the Rules of this Court. In response, the defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed their statement of defence together with other defence processes in compliance with the Rules of this Court. Claimant’s Case The case of the claimant is that he was wrongfully suspended from work without any recourse to appropriate law establishing the 1st defendant. The claimant averred that he is an employee of the 1st defendant and without any blemish he rose to the position of Director before his suspension and continued suspension by the 2nd defendant till date. He went on that he was queried on allegation that the 1st defendant was short changed through the acts of commission or omission of staff of the commercial services Directorate under the claimant leadership, which he answered and explained in detail how he made more revenue for the Corporation and further explained that the 1st defendant was not short changed. He maintained that he has worked with the 1st defendant for 25years without any blemish but with several awards during the period. Defendants’ Case The case of the defendants is that as the Head of the 1st defendant’s Commercial Service Directorate, the claimant was accountable for the happenings in the Directorate and so the claimant was queried on the Audit report which indicted the Directorate. They canvassed that the General Manager (the 2nd defendant) acted in accordance with Civil Service procedures that requires the setting up of an Administrative Panel of Enquiry to look into the acts of an errant officer. The defendants averred further that the claimant had hitherto received queries, letters of warning and letters of suspension previously and that his leadership qualities were found to be deficient. To the defendants, their actions followed due process based on the Rules of Oyo State Civil Service. During hearing of the case, the claimant testified as CW1 while the defendants called three witnesses; Tajudeen Adegoke Akanji DW1, Rasak Adejimi Lawal as DW2 and Rotimi Olusegun Adeniyi as DW3 on behalf of the defendants. After the witnesses’ testimonies, the Court directed the parties’ counsel to file their final written addresses in line with the Rules of this Court and they complied with the direction. Defendants’ Written Arguments In their final written address, counsel to the defendants formulated the following issues for determination of the court: 1. Whether the 2nd defendant acted in accordance with the Civil Service Procedure Rules by setting up an Administrative Panel of Enquiry to investigate the allegations against the claimant. 2. Whether the claimant was treated fairly in the entire process from the time he was queried until the time of suspension. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs being sought by him or any relief at all. Arguing issue one, counsel submitted that the whole disciplinary process culminating into this action started with the Protest Letter written by one of the consumers of the 1st defendant, alleging irregularities in their billing regime, hence the claimant was issued query, which he answered and subsequently; an Administrative Panel of Enquiry was set up, the report of which observed that the claimant was “negligent in his duties to adequately supervise his subordinate and this led to the loss of revenue to the Corporation resulting in the claimant’s suspension; the report is before the Court. She went on that within the Civil Service and Public Service Rules of Oyo State, negligence of duty is frowned at very seriously and that the penalty is usually grave. To her, anyone in pensionable employment is not expected to be terminated, except in proven misconduct or for other specific reason, citing Igwilo v. CBN [2000] FWLR (Pt.18) 265 @ 300 – 301 CA and the Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Page 999. Counsel continued that according to the Public Service Rules, an officer in service who has an allegation leveled against him is first issued with a query, which gives him the opportunity to present his case whether he is guilty or not; after which the employer/Government sets up an Administrative Panel of Enquiry. Counsel’s position is that the defendants acted properly in the instant case by constituting a Panel of Enquiry to look into the matter. She went on that for an officer of the claimant’s level; he could not be summarily dismissed without going through the due process. Arguing issue two of whether the claimant was treated fairly, counsel answered this in the affirmative because; the claimant was queried, given letters of warning before his suspension. She went on that Fair Hearing does not have to be oral as it could be a representation in writing, citing Lake Chad Research Institute v. Mohammed [2004] FWLR (Pt. 225) 40 @ 60. Counsel went on that, following the report of the Administrative Panel of Enquiry; Exhibit C.16 letter of suspension was issued to the Claimant in accordance with the Civil Service Regulations. Therefore, counsel submitted that whatever was done by the defendants in respect of this matter was strictly according to the rules of Civil Service Procedure and none of the other staff members of the 2nd defendant or any other person was on a witch-hunt mission against the claimant. Arguing issue three of whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs, counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the damages being sought for by him or any damages at all on the basis that the allegation leveled against him is that of misconduct, referring to Exhibit C16. Counsel went on that the claimant was not only treated fairly but in accordance with the rules of Civil Service and that he was given fair hearing at the Administrative Panel. Counsel continued that the claimant is not entitled to either damages or reinstatement whatsoever, as the allegation of negligence of his duties was what led to his suspension. Counsel referred the Court to the cases of Usuf v. National Teachers’ Institute [2002] FWLR (Pt.129) 159 @ 1526 CA; NEPA v. Eyong [2003] FWLR (Pt. 175) 452 @ 470 C.A; Ali v. NAA [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 272) 265 @ 289-90 CA; Fakunade v. O.A.U. Teaching Hospital [1993] 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) and Oyedele v. LUTH [1990] NWLR (Pt. 155) and urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s suit. Claimant’s Written Arguements In the claimant’s final written address, his counsel framed these issues for determination of the Court: 1. Whether the suspension and continue suspension of the claimant is ultra vires, unlawful, wrong illegal, unfair, unjust, malicious, unreasonable and/or blatant breach of the rules of the natural justice and the Constitution? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to re-instatement to his due position without any loss of remuneration and promotional benefits? 3. Whether the claimant has right to his salaries and entitlement from 1st September 2013 until this matter is determined and thereafter plus general and exemplary damages? Arguing issue one, counsel submitted that what is admitted need no further proof, referring to Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011 and to Din African Newspaper Ltd [1990] 3 NWLR (Pt.139) 392. He went on that the claimant’s paragraphs 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 of the statement of facts among others were admitted by the defendants in paragraph 1 of their Statement of Defence and that these paragraphs show that the claimant is the employee of the 1st defendant since May 2, 1989 who rose to the position of a Director before he was suspended by the 2nd defendant through a letter dated August 28, 2013. Also that the 1st defendant is a creation of law as stated in Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Facts, so the procedure for the removal of the claimant’s employment are governed by statute, citing Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt.265) 303 and Tolani v. Kwara State Judicial Service Commission [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 481) Pg. 880 at P.935 Para F-G. Counsel further submitted that the defendants suspended the claimant without recourse to the appropriate laws and/or went outside the statutes or laws governing his employment. In addition, counsel submitted that by the provision of Rule 030103 Chapter 3 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules, Vol. 1 of January 2013, the 2nd defendant/General Manager does not have power to suspend, discipline or prosecute a Director of the 1st defendant, the claimant who is a level 16 officer in the Oyo State Civil Service as the power of the 2nd defendant on such actions starts and ends with officers below level 12. Counsel continued that it is the Civil Service Commission who has such power on the claimant, referring to Rules 030101, 030103 and 030307 of the Oyo State Public Service Rules, Vol. 1 of January 2013. Furthermore, counsel maintained that the act of backdating or serving Exhibit C.16 (Letter of Suspension dated August 28, 2013) and Exhibit C.18 (titled “Re: Letter of Suspension dated December 6, 2013) is wrong and against the rules of natural justice. He continued that the claimant pleaded in paragraph 32 and testified that he signed an acknowledged note (Dispatch Note) on receiving the two letters, which the defendants admitted in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Defence but never produced neither did they tender the Acknowledged Note as exhibit even when given notice to produce same. Counsel went on that the claimant pleaded in paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the statement of facts that his official car was withdrawn, his salary was stopped and his office was put under lock and key on the September 2, 2013 and that when he asked the 2nd defendant, the G. M. promised to get in touch with him, which the G. M. never did but only responded with the suspension letter. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the act is wrong and against rules of natural justice. Again counsel contended that the defendants distorted and/or altered the Letter of Suspension tendered as Exhibit D2 referring to paragraphs 8 and 10 of his “Reply to Statement of Defence, which is different from the original one tended by the claimant as Exhibit C.16. Also he submitted that the composition of Administrative Panel of Enquiry with junior officers to investigate the claimant because they were loyal to the General Manager was wrong and against the provision of Paragraph V, Rule 030307 of Section 3 of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State and urged the Court to so hold. Counsel noted that the 2nd defendant, General Manager constituted himself as the accuser and at the same time the Judge. He was the same person that commissioned the Audit Investigation Committee, gave query, set-up the Administrative Panel of Enquiry and also suspended the claimant without regard to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which forbids the General Manager from exercising disciplinary control over officers on GL.13 and above; referring to Chapter 3 Rule 030103 of the Public Service Rules Vol. 1 of January 2013. He urged the Court to hold that the action of the defendants is ultra vires and void. Arguing issue two of whether the claimant is entitled to re-instatement without any loss of remuneration and promotional benefits; counsel submitted that suspension is a temporary withdrawal or cessation from employment, which can be said to means to defer, lay aside or hold in abeyance or to halt midway but certainly not to bring to an end or terminate; referring to Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition Page 1447 and to case of Adeyanju v. Unilorin [2015] 7NWLR (Pt. 923) pg. 87. He went on to state that the appropriate order to make is to reinstate the claimant to his due position without any loss of remuneration benefits and/or advantage of any kind whatsoever. Arguing issue three of whether the claimant is entitled to his salaries from September 1, 2013 until this matter is determined and to general and exemplary damages; counsel submitted that the evidence of the claimant is unchallenged with credible evidence. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to judgment against the defendants on the imaginary scale as posited by the Supreme Court in Mogaji v Odofin [1978] 4 SC 11. To counsel, there is nothing on record in favour of the Defendants to counter-weigh the evidence of the claimant; referring to Nwabuoku v. Ottih [1961] All NLR 487; Mobil Production Nigeria United v. Udo [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 1177) at Pg. 1187 Ratio 12 parag. 3; Adekunle v. Western Region Finance Corporation [1963] NWLR and Anthony Odigwe Udemah v. Nigerian Coal Corporation [199] 3 NWLR (Pt. 180) Pg. 477 at 486. Further Written Address As Ordered By The Court On September 14, 2017 when this matter came up for judgment the Court raised two further issues of law for counsel to the parties to file additional written addresses on and counsel acted accordingly. These issues are: (i) Whether the 2nd defendant – General Manager, Water Corporation of Oyo State; is a juristic person. (ii) Whether the defendant can legally place the claimant on indefinite suspension without pay and whether this accords with International best practice and International Labour Standard Defendant’s Further Written Address Arguing the first issue, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the enabling statute of the 1st defendant did not in any way confer juristic personality on the 2nd defendant. This is because the Water Corporation of Oyo State Law Cap 168, Volume V; Laws of Oyo State 2000 only provides that the General Manager of the 1st defendant is a member of Board of the Corporation. He went on that legal personality of a statutory Corporation is conferred upon it either expressly or impliedly by the statute creating same, citing Anozia v. A.G. Lagos State [2010] 15NWLR (Pt. 1216) page 207@ 215. That the proper order to make here is that the Court strikes out the 2nd Defendant’s name as a party in this matter. Arguing issue two, counsel submitted that the Termination of Employment Convention No 158 and Recommendation No. 166 have not been ratified by the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be void to the extent of its inconsistency. Therefore, the Convention and the recommendation are not applicable to this case in the counsel’s opinion. Claimant’s Further Written Address On the 1st additional issue, counsel to the claimant submitted that where a body or an office is created by statute; the right to sue or be sued can be inferred, notwithstanding the absence of an express provision in this regard, citing Chairman EFCC & Anor v. Littlechild & Anor [2015] LPELR - 25199(CA) P. 29, Paras. D-E and Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. v. General Manager, G.B. Olivant Ltd he argued that the General Manager of Water Corporation (the 2nd defendant) is a creation of the law and this make him a juristic person, citing Section 17(1) of the Water Corporation of Oyo State (Amendment) Law, 2006. He continued that Section 3 of the Water Corporation of Oyo State (Amendment) Law, 2006 provides for Oyo State Water Corporation while by section 4 gave the Corporation its juristic personality with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall have power to sue and be sued in its corporate name. On whether the defendants can legally place the claimant on indefinite suspension without pay and whether this accords with International Best Practices and International Labour Standard, counsel submitted that the defendants cannot legally place the claimant on indefinite suspension without pay, that their act of suspending the claimant indefinitely without pay is contrary to the International Best Practices and International Labour Standard; referring to the Termination of Employment Convention No. 158 and to Recommendation No.166 to the convension. Counsel also referred the Court to its earlier judgment in Aloysius V Diamond Bank Plc. [2015] 58 NLLR (Pt.199) 92. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully gone through the facts of this case, the written briefs of counsel to both parties and their cited authorities; from these, I am of the considered view that the following issues need to be resolved between the parties: 1. Whether or not the 2nd defendant is a juristic person. 2. Whether or not the claimant was properly suspended indefinitely without pay by the defendants in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and Rules of Oyo State. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to be re-instated without loss of his salaries and allowances right from when he was suspended till date or he is entitled to general damages and the cost of this action. Before resolving these issues we need to determine the admissibility of Documents C.16 at page 54 of the record and D.2 at page 109 of the record. These documents are the same; they are copies of the claimant’s Letter of Suspension. Document C.16 is the one tendered and relied on by the claimant while Document D.2 is the copy tendered and relied on by the defendants. Both letters were issued on August 28, 2013. However, on Document D.2, there is an addition of the phrase: “Thro the chairman” while that phrase is conspicuously absent on Document C.16. In paragraph 32 of the statement of fact, the claimant avers that he signed an acknowledged note (dispatch note) when he received the letter of suspension and another letter same day and gave the defendants notice to produce the acknowledged note. The defendants admitted this in paragraph 1 of their Statement of Defence but they did not tender the dispatch note during the trial of this case. This admission notwithstanding; in paragraph 12 of the statement of defence, the defendants aver that they made several attempts to serve the letter of suspension personally on the claimant but he was evasive until same was delivered to him by a courier company. However; in paragraph 4 of his reply to the statement of defence, the claimant denied service of the letter of suspension on him by a Courier Company and avers that one Wahab Olaniyan, an Administrative Officer of the 1st defendant delivered that letter of suspension and another letter dated 6th December, 2013 titled “Re; Letter of Suspension” on him on 20th December, 2013 by hand, in which he signed the acknowledgment note and made photocopy of the original before the said administrative officer left with the original dispatched note. The claimant further put defendants on notice to produce the original of the acknowledged note but the defendants did not produce the acknowledgment note. In my considered view, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the letter of suspension they served on the claimant is Document D.2 and not C.16 but they failed to do this as they could not prove service of Document D.2 on the claimant. On the other hand, the claimant’s testimony on the copy of the letter of suspension, Document C.16 he received is more convincing as he denied being served by courier but personally by a named Administrative officer of the 1st defendant and that he signed dispatched note when he received the letter together with another one on a specified date. I find that the admission of these facts in paragraph 1 of the statement of defence stands and that the defendants’ attempt to deny same in paragraph 12 of their statement of defence will not be allowed by this Court as it is trite that the defendants are not allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time; they cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. See the cases of Oladapo v. Bank of the North Ltd. [2000] LPELR-5284(CA): [2001] 1 NWLR (Pt.694) 255 and Ude v. Nwara [1993] 2 NWLR (Pt.278) 638 at 662-663 paras. F-C." Per Mukhtar, J.C.A. (Pp. 25-26, paras. G-A). Consequently, I hold that it was Document C.16 that was served on the claimant as his letter of suspension and not Document D.2 and that it is this Document C.16 that will be relied on in this judgment as the copy of the claimant’s letter of suspension while Document D.2 is accordingly discountenanced in this judgment. Is The 2nd Defendant, The General Manager of the 1st Defendant A Juristic Person? Contrary to the submission of the counsel to the claimant that where a body or an office is created by statute, the right to sue or be sued can be inferred; it is worthy of note that section 4 of Water Corporation of Oyo State Law, Cap 168 is to the effect that the Corporation shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and shall have power to sue and be sued in its corporate name etc. Section 17 of this Law provides for the office of the General Manager of the Corporation with the responsibility of carrying out the policies and decisions of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the Water Corporation Law of Oyo State. In this law, it is not provided that the office of the General Manager of the 1st defendant (the Corporation) has power to sue and be sued for the Corporation. It is trite that the express mention of a thing is the exclusion of other. This is one of the rules on interpretation of statutes. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute, it leads to the presumption that the things not mentioned are excluded. See the cases of Olanrewaju Commercial Services Ltd v. Sogaolu & Anor [2014] LPELR-24086(CA) and Ehuwa v. Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors.[2006] LPELR-1056(SC) other citation (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt.1012) 544; (2006) 11-12 S.C. 102; (2006) 11-12 S.C. 102 where the Court held that: "It is now firmly established that in the construction of a Statutory provision, where a statute mentions specific things or persons, the intention is that those not mentioned are not intended to be included”. In view of the fact that it is not stated in section 17 or in any other section of the Water Corporation Law of Oyo State that the 2nd defendant can sue or be sued for the Water Corporation, I find and hold that the General Manager, Water Corporation Oyo State is not a juristic person and it is accordingly struck out as the 2nd defendant in this case. Was the Claimant Properly Suspended Indefinitely Without Pay? According to the content of the suspension letter, Document C.16 dated August 28, 2013; which the claimant received on December 20, 2013 together with Document C.18, the letter titled: “Re: Letter of Suspension” of December 6, 2013; the claimant was a Director, Commercial Services of the 1st defendant. Document C.16 states that based on the report of the Administrative Panel of Enquiry, the claimant was found guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty as a result of which the 1st defendant lost N8,255,968.00. He was, therefore; suspended indefinitely with immediate effect and without payment of salary or any remuneration. Document C.18 further directed the claimant to remain on suspension till further notice. Both parties are in agreement to the effect that the claimant was in the public service of Oyo State and so, the provisions of the Public Service Regulations and the Public service Rules of Oyo State are applicable to and will be relied on in this judgment. See the claimant’s averments in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the statement of facts, which were admitted by the defendants in paragraph 1 of their Statement of Defence. The law is that facts admitted need no further proof, see section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of Taiwo v. Adegboro [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 584) 52 SC; Ibadan LGPC Ltd. v. Okunade [2000] 3 NWLR (Pt. 11) 45; Ekpemupolo v. Edremode [2009]8 NWLR (Pt. 1142)166 at 196 and Unilorin v. Adesina [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 487) 56 CA. Even though the letter of suspension of the claimant (Document C.16) cited sections 46 and 49 (ii) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State, 1978 as their basis for the claimant’s indefinite suspension without pay; counsel to the defendants did not refer to any provision of these regulations as cited in that letter in her final written address for the defendants, notwithstanding the formation of her issue one in the said address to wit: “Whether the 2nd defendant acted in accordance with the Civil Service Procedure Rules by setting up an Administrative Panel of Enquiry to investigate the allegations against the Claimant.” Regulation 46 of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State is on when interdiction and suspension is permissible under the Regulations. Regulation 46 (1) is on when criminal proceeding is instituted against a public officer; which is not the issue here. Regulation 46 (2) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State provides: Where in the opinion of the disciplinary authority a prima facie case of misconduct (the nature of which the disciplinary authority considers serious) has been established against an officer of any category or against an officer holding a temporary appointment in any category and it is considered necessary in the public interest that he should forthwith be prohibited from carrying on his duties, the disciplinary authority may forthwith suspend him from the exercise of the powers and functions of his office for a period not exceeding two months in the first instance pending investigation into the misconduct. Regulation 47 (1) (a) of Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State provides: Where a Head of Department considers that a public officer should be interdicted under regulation 46 he shall- a) if the officer is in category 1 or 2, reports the case with his recommendations to the Commission; or Regulation 47 (4) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State also provides- The period of suspension of a public officer may not be extended beyond two months except with the approval of the Commission. Regulation 49 (2) of Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State again provides: A public officer who is under suspension shall not, subject to the provisions of Regulation 51, receive any salary during the period of the suspension. Regulation 51 of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State provides: A public officer adjudged by a Court of Law to be guilty of a criminal offence (being a criminal offence as defined for the purpose of these regulations) shall not receive any emolument from the date of such judgment, pending the decision of the disciplinary authority. Public Officers on categories 1 and 2 under these Regulations are those from GL 13 and above together with those on GL 08 – 12 respectively. See Regulation 3, Part 1 of these Regulations on Interpretations. By the claimant’s last promotion letter before the Court in Document C.8 at page 28 of the record; he became Director, Commercial Services of the 1st defendant on GL 16 with effect from July 1, 2012. See also Document C.16 in which the claimant is addressed as Director, Commercial Services by the 1st defendant. This means that the claimant was a category 1 Public Officer in the public service of Oyo State before the cause of action here arose in December 2012 when he was served with his letter of suspension. Hence, the provisions of Regulation 47 (1) (a) & (4) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State are apposite here. In Document C.16 it is stated that based on the report of the Administrative Panel of Enquiry (apparently of the 1st defendant since the letter is on the letter head of the 1st defendant), the claimant was found guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty as a result of which the 1st defendant lost N8,255,968.00. There is no evidence that this matter was reported to the police; no criminal action was taken up against the claimant by the defendants. Thus, it is presumed that the defendants regarded the claimant’s alleged negligence as a misconduct, which they handled administratively. Going by the provision of regulation 47 (1) (a) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State, the 1st defendant ought to have submitted the report of its Administrative Panel of Enquiry on the claimant’s alleged negligence to the 3rd defendant (the Civil Service Commission of Oyo State) for discipline instead of suspending him by itself because the claimant is a category 1 officer in the public service of Oyo State and I so find. In addition, the claimant was suspended indefinitely, see paragraph 2 of Document C.16; whereas, by the provision of Regulation 47 (4) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State, the claimant can only be suspended for two months except with the approval of the Commission, the 3rd defendant and there is no evidence before the Court that the 3rd defendant, the Civil Service Commission of Oyo State approved the extension of or the indefinite suspension of the claimant by the 1st defendant. Therefore, I find that suspending the claimant indefinitely as the 1st defendant did here is contrary to the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State; and so, wrongful. Furthermore, Regulation 49 of the Civil Service Commission Regulations of Oyo allows an erring public officer in Oyo State to be on suspension without pay during the period of the suspension subject to the provisions of Regulation 51 and Regulation 51 states that only a public officer that is adjudged by a Court of Law to be guilty of a criminal offence (as so defined for the purpose in the CSC Regulations) shall not receive any emolument from the date of such judgment, pending the decision of the disciplinary authority. In essence; a suspended public officer in Oyo State public service will not receive his emolument during the period of his suspension, if he is convicted of a criminal offence and that the stoppage of payment of the officer’s salaries and allowances will be with effect from the date of his/her conviction. The 1st defendant referred to Regulation 49 (2) in the letter of suspension, Document C.16 as it basis for the said suspension without pay. The findings that the 1st defendant relied on in suspending the claimant without pay; was that of its’ own Administrative Panel and not on the conviction of a crime by a competent Court of Law. For this reason, I find and hold that the defendants have no power to suspend the claimant indefinitely and without pay; as their said action was not covered by the provisions of the Public Service Commission Regulations of Oyo State relied on by them. Besides, it is stated in paragraph 1 of Document C.16 that the Administrative Panel of the 1st defendant found the claimant guilty of negligence. By the provision of Rule 030301 (h) of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State, negligence is misconduct under the Public Service Rules of Oyo State. The steps to follow in disciplining a person found guilty of such misconduct before same is referred to the Civil Service Commission of the State are stated in Rules 030303 and 030305 of Public Service Rules of Oyo State. Rule 030302 of Public Service Rules of Oyo State provides: As soon as a Superior Officer becomes dissatisfied with the behaviour of any Officer subordinate to him/her, it shall be his/her duty so to inform the Officer in writing giving details of unsatisfactory behaviour and to call upon him/her to submit within a specific time such written representation as he/she may wish to make to exculpate himself/herself from disciplinary action. After considering such written representations as the Officer may make within the specified time, the Superior Officer shall decide whether: (a) The Officer has exculpated himself/herself in which case, he/she shall be so informed in writing and no further action shall be necessary or (b) The Officer has not exculpated himself/herself but it is considered that he/she should not be punished in which case the appropriate formal letter of advice shall be issued to him/her and he/she shall be required to acknowledge its receipt in writing, or (c) The officer has not exculpated himself/herself and deserves some punishment, in which case Rule 030304 shall apply. Rule 030304 provides: a) It shall be the duty of every officer to report any case of misconduct that comes to his/her notice to an Officer superior to the Officer involved. b) When Officer’s Misconduct is brought to the notice of his/her Superior Officer, it shall be the duty of that Superior Officer to report it to the Permanent Secretary/Head of Extra-Ministerial Department immediately. If he/she considers it necessary that the Officer should be interdicted, such recommendations shall be made in the report. c) On receiving the report, the Permanent Secretary/Head of Extra-Ministerial Department shall take action in accordance with Rule 030306 as appropriate and, if necessary, shall interdict the Officer. d) At the appropriate point in the investigation, the Officer may be suspended in accordance with Rule 030405 Rules 030305 provides – If it is re-presented to the Civil Service Commission that an Officer has been guilty of misconduct and the Commission does not consider the alleged misconduct serious enough to warrant proceeding under Rule 030306 with a view to dismissal, it may cause an investigation to be made into the matter in such a manner as it considers proper and the Officer shall be entitled to know the whole case made against him/her and shall have adequate opportunity of making his/her defence. If as a result, the Commission decides that the allegation is proved, it may inflict any other punishment upon the Officer such as reduction in rank, withholding or deferment of increment or otherwise. Rule 030406 states: Suspension should not be used as a synonym for interdiction. It shall apply where a prima facie case, the nature of which is serious, has been established against an officer and it is consider necessary in the public interest that he/she should forthwith be prohibited from carrying out his/her duties pending investigation into the misconduct, the civil service commission or the permanent secretary/ Head of Extra – ministerial Department (if within his /her delegated powers) shall forthwith suspend him/her from the exercise of the powers and functions of his/her office and from the enjoyment of his /her emolument. Rule 030307 (xiii) provides that “all disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases. From the above reproduced Rules, I find that the General Manager of the 1st defendant is a superior officer to the claimant; and so, he could initiate disciplinary procedure under Rule 030102 of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State against the claimant as he did by setting up an Administrative Panel to investigate the claimant. The report and recommendation of the panel is, however; required to be sent to the Civil Service Commission under Rules 030105, who then takes disciplinary action against the claimant because the claimant is a category 1 public servant in Oyo State. However, the 1st defendant did not send the report to the Civil Service Commission; instead, the 1st defendant suspended the claimant indefinitely and without pay. There is no evidence before the Court that the 1st defendant complied with the provisions of Rule 030305 of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State by presenting the Administrative Report to the Civil Service Commission. More so, that the 1st defendant directed the claimant to remain suspended vide Document C.18 until further notice, contrary to Rules 030304 and 030305 of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State. Likewise, Rule 030307 (xiii) of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State provides that “all disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases. There is clearly no criminal investigation against the claimant from the evidence before this Court and the claimant’s suspension is more than 60 days already as it continues indefinitely up till now because there is nothing to show that the claimant’s employment has been determined before the Court. Therefore, I find and hold that the continued suspension of the claimant is not in line with the provisions of the Public Service Rules of Oyo State. Is the claimant entitled to reinstatement in the circumstance of this case? For an employee who is wrongly disciplined or whose employment was wrongly determined to be entitled to re-instatement, his employment must have enjoyed statutory flavour. In the case of Imoloame v. WA.E.C. [1992] 11/12 SCNJ 121 at 135; [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303, the Supreme Court held that: "where the contract of service is governed by the provisions of a statute or where the Conditions of Service are contained in regulations derived from statutory provisions, they invest the employee with a legal status higher than the ordinary one of Master and Servant. It accordingly enjoys statutory flavour". Also in the case of Union Bank v. Ogboh [1995] 2 SCNJ; [1995] 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 the Supreme Court held that: "In an employment with statutory flavour, the parties are bound to observe the Conditions contained in the statute and anything done which is inconsistent with that shall be null and void and of no effect. Section 318 (e) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (As Amended) under “the public service of a State” provides that the public service of a State includes ‘staff of any statutory corporation established by a law of a House of Assembly’. This includes staff/employees of the 1st defendant whose conditions of service are covered by the Rules and Regulations of the Public Service of Oyo State. The Rules and Regulations of the Public Service of Oyo State are made pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (As Amended) for smooth operations of the Public Service of Oyo State; therefore, I find and hold that the claimant’s employment with the 1st defendant is with statutory flavour. These Rules and Regulations of Oyo State Public Service include the conditions of service of the claimant as reproduced above, are required to be strictly complied with but; the defendants have failed to comply with these rules and regulations in disciplining the claimant in the instant case as shown in this judgment . Consequently, I hold that the suspension of the claimant by the defendants is a nullity and of no effect whatsoever. In the recent case of University of Ilorin & Ors v. Dr. Mrs. Aize I Obayan unreported Suit No: SC.35/2006, the judgment of which was delivered on February 2, 2018; the Supreme Court held inter alia that: Although Exhibit 25, which is the revised regulations governing the conditions of service of Senior Staff of the University of Ilorin provides for termination of appointment since there is evidence that the respondent is a senior staff of University of Ilorin, her employment could not be treated as a mere master and servant relationship whereby her service could be dispensed with at will. --- I find that this appeal is totally devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I further affirm the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 10 March, 2005; which ordered the respondents (now the appellants) to reinstate and restore the plaintiff to her post as a lecturer and reader in the Department of Guidance and Counseling of the University and to restore to her all rights, entitlements and other perquisites of that office and to pay to the plaintiff all her salaries, allowances and other entitlements from September 1999 to date. For the avoidance of doubt, the plaintiff is still in the service of the University of Ilorin. Based on this findings and holdings above and on the recent of the Supreme Court cited above, I hold in addition that the claimant is to be re-instated as the Director, Commercial Services of the 1st defendant and to restore to him all rights, entitlements and other perquisites of that office and to pay to him all his salaries, allowances and other entitlements with effect from August 28, 2013 to date. Judgment is entered accordingly. The defendants are to also pay to the claimant N100,000.00 cost Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge