Vet officer fired for fraud

The labour court has upheld the dismissal of a veterinary extension assistant for fraud.

Labour Court judge Justice Muzofa upheld the Public Service Commission decision to dismiss the officer Matsina for misappropriating government funds amounting to $54.

The Worker reported the Commission through its legal advisor submitted to the Labour Court that Matsina in his official capacity received dipping fees from farmers.

"During the period 21 July 2010 to 19 August of the same year, he received and receipted the correct amount of fees paid by the farmers on the original copies amounting to $76. Matsina then fraudulently receipted $22 on the fast copies
thereby prejudicing the state of $54," reads the submission.

Matsina disputed the accusations stating that he had not committed the carbon fraud arguing that there was no evidence to prove that he was guilty.

Matsina added that the minutes produced by the hearing committee were doctored because the said hearing did not proceed beyond the introductory phase as the committee objected to him being represented by Ignatius Murambatsvina of Murambitsvina legal practitioners.

The assertion by Matsina that the hearing was not held forced the court to order the Public Service Commission to bring the hearing committee to court as witnesses.

Matsina further argued that if he had committed the offence why it took so long for the Commission to persecute him.

"I was suspended from duty on 2 June 2015, summoned to appear before a hearing committee on 15 July 2015 and dismissed from duty on 22 September 2014 four years after the alleged offence was committed. This only proves that I have no case to answer," Matsina told the court.

In her judgement Muzofa said, "Three witnesses were called the chairperson, one committee member and the secretary to the disciplinary authority gave evidence.

Their evidence was that Appellant appeared before them with Mr. Murambatswi n a h i s l e g a l practitioner.

The legal practitioner was only precluded from answering questions relating to the Appellant's job description. They did not know the Appellant until the date of hearing," went on Muzofa in here judgement.

"The recording secretary indicated she minuted the proceedings, sent them to members and produce a final draft that was eventually signed. The record of
proceedings was not doctored as alleged by the Appellant. She indicted that there was no provision for the disciplinary authority"

Muzofa further stated that after hearing the evidence she was convinced that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted.

"I have no doubt that this issue was raised as an after thought. It is my finding that disciplinary proceedings were conducted," reads part of the Muzofa judgement.

In the judgement the honourable judge appeared to agree with the assertion of Matsina that there was no evidence to prove that indeed he had defrauded the Commission.

However Mazofa based her verdict on the minutes of the hearing which Matsina had dismissed as doctored. In the minutes Matsina had pleaded guilty and pleaded for lenience.

"In my view, Appellant admitted the charges," ruled Muzofa. He explained why he committed the misconduct. This is the equivalent of a plea of guilt and that usually dispenses of the need to lead evidence to prove the charges."