The Ombudsman has criticised a decision by the Veterinary Surgeons Council to allow a vet to practise in the public service without a formal warrant.

Although the vet was technically qualified, the council had failed to process his warrant within the four months required by law, yet allowed him to work until the paperwork was finalised.

It was "disturbing" when an institution, set up by law, favoured a state of illegality by allowing the person to do veterinary work, ignoring the law and good practice, Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino said in his office case notes.

The case revealed "a negative aspect in the practice of public administration", he added.

Some weeks ago, the Ombudsman launched an own-initiative report looking into the relationship between government and public entities. In the report, he stressed that transparency and accountability should be the passwords for good governance throughout all levels of the administrative pyramid.

In the case in question, the vet had explained that he graduated from an Italian University in July 2006. He applied to the Veterinary Surgeons Council for a warrant in February 2007. In April 2008, he complained to the Ombudsman because, 15 months on, he was still waiting for his warrant. According to law, the council was to conclude the application request within four months. But it was only in December 2007 that the council chairman informed the vet he had been nominated for the issue of a warrant by the President of Malta.

The council chairman authorised the vet to practise his profession - on the strength of a letter of tolerance - until the President signed the relevant paper work. However, the Ombudsman said, this was not allowed according to law because the vet could only work if he was authorised to do so by the President.

The Ombudsman also pointed out that the council, as constituted at the time of the case hearing, was not entirely to blame for the delay because it had to deal with a "deplorable" backlog left by the previous council.

While he recognised that the present council was "seriously hampered in its work by the unjustifiable delay and the inaction of the previous council, it was a fact that it took this council 15 months to perform a statutory duty that it was bound by law to conclude in four months".

In his submission to the Ombudsman, the vet also complained about the council's lack of proper administrative set-up. He had wished to work in the UK, so he registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons of the UK.

To this end, in January 2008, he submitted a letter of good professional conduct from the Maltese council, which was rejected because it was not on formally-headed paper and devoid of an official stamp or seal.

The Ombudsman agreed there was a lack of a proper administrative set-up that needed to be addressed.

Once the warrant issue had been resolved and the vet eventually served with a warrant, there was no further action to take over the grievance.