Injustices tribunal dismisses former bus dispatcher's case

A bus dispatcher who was sacked after being convicted of inciting his daughter to prostitute herself and was jailed for a year took his case to the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustices but lost it.

Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco said he could not understand how Joseph Cachia could expect the police commissioner and the Public Transport Authority to have acted incorrectly for refusing to re-employ him.

Cachia claimed he had sustained an injustice between May 9, 1987, and May 15, 1996, when he had not been awarded a promotion he deserved.

Cachia said he worked as a bus dispatcher between April 1978, and September 1989, and was employed by the police commissioner.

But he had stopped working to serve a prison sentence in connection with a crime he claimed he did not commit and that in any event, was not connected with his employment.

After he had served his prison sentence, he had applied on numerous occasions for the post of bus dispatcher.

But both the police commissioner and the PTA (that later assumed responsibility for the public transport system) had refused to employ him.

Cachia claimed that his application for employment was refused because of his political opinions, for he was an active member of the Labour Party.

He therefore requested the tribunal to provide him with a remedy and to order that he be employed as bus dispatcher with the PTA.

The tribunal heard how Cachia had been sentenced to one year in prison by the Magistrates' Court for prostituting his daughter.

The judgment was confirmed by the appeal court and Cachia had served two months of the sentence as he had benefited from some amnesties.

Cachia had declared that his case had been heard by the Public Service Commission as there had been a criminal judgment in his regard.

Other witnesses confirmed that following Cachia's conviction, he had been dismissed from government service in accordance with public service regulations.

Police Superintendent Ronald Kelly told the tribunal that Cachia's criminal record showed that he had beaten his wife, disturbed the peace, slightly injured his wife and left his wife and children in need. He had also encouraged his daughter to prostitution.

The superintendent also explained that whenever criminal proceedings were filed against any public service employee, the provisions of the PSC regulations had to be observed.

A right of appeal existed from the findings of the PSC, but no records indicated that Cachia had appealed.

The tribunal concluded that no evidence resulted that either of respondents had acted incorrectly, and that on the contrary it appeared that all procedures had been observed.

The tribunal declared that it failed to understand how Cachia could ever expect respondents to be found to have acted incorrectly when they had refused to re-employ him, and it dismissed Cachia's application with costs against him.