The Commissioner for Health had criticised the Health Department for not having taken action against four workers who maliciously made false claims of sexual molestation against a colleague.

The man ended up being investigated by the police and taken to court, where he was found not guilty.

The case ended up before the Commissioner (within the Office of the Ombudsman) after the victim said that he had been suspended from work following the claims by his female colleagues. In Court, one of these colleagues admitted that the allegations were fabricated.

Yet after the court found him not guilty, the man said that he was removed from the position he occupied and was transferred to another department. Consequently, he suffered loss of income.

The complainant said that the Department of Health had not taken any disciplinary action against the four employees who had maliciously accused him. He also pointed out that at the time of the allegations he was not given the opportunity to defend himself before the matter was referred to the police.

In his investigations, the Ombudsman noted that one of the four employees admitted in court that “din l-istorja kienet ivvintata” (the story was made up).

The Commissioner for Health asked the Department of Health to comment about
the case. In her reply the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), said that the transfer of the complainant was not related to the case and there was a significant number of employees in the complainant’s grade who were transferred.

On the allegation, that the complainant was not given the opportunity to defend
himself before reporting the case to the police the CMO stated that the department had no option but to refer the matter to the police for the necessary investigation.

The CMO said it was the police who proceeded with the case and arraigned the
complainant.

It also confirmed that the the four workers who made the allegations were not prosecuted. 

In comments in reply to questions, the Public Service Commission agreed that in such a situation of a potentially criminal nature, the police should be called in.
Of the four employees who made the allegations against the complainant, the
PSC stated that only one of them was a public officer and that the other three were
employees of a contractor engaged by the Department of Health.

It was confirmed that the contractor had been directed by the department not to send these three employees to work in the same department where the complainant worked,  to avoid further contact with him.
 
In his decision, the Commissioner for Health said that it was the prerogative of the management to effect transfers according to the exigencies of the service. There was no evidence to show that the complainant's transfer was related to this case or that it was vindictive.

On the allegation by the complainant that he should have been given the
opportunity to defend himself before the matter was referred to the police, in
view of the serious accusations which implied a crime, the Commissioner said the Department of Health was right to refer the matter directly to the police.

As to disciplinary action against those who made the false claims,  the Commissioner confirmed with the police that no action of perjury against the four employees was taken.

The Commissioner said that it was not within his function to express himself on whether the action of the police was right.

However the fact that the police did not take any action against the four who falsely lodged a complaint did not mean that the Department of Health could not itself initiate disciplinary action.

One of those who made the allegation against the complainant was a public officer and through her actions, rendered herself liable to be charged.

"The department should have given more in depth consideration to the impact that such behaviour could have on healthcare delivery in a clinical setting where a serene atmosphere is essential. The fact that no criminal charges were taken against the four employees, in no way precluded the Department from initiating disciplinary action on the same facts against the employees, once there was prima facie evidence of an offence," the Commissioner said.

"The department could have taken action when it was officially informed of the outcome and of the evidence that resulted potentially incriminating the four employees."