The labour court has given police managers the green light to terminate the employment of an officer who admitted stealing groceries from a supermarket.
The court overturned the police disciplinary committee’s sanction to suspend the cop without pay for only two months, an action that led the police to approach the court for a review.
The court found that the disciplinary chairperson had acted irrationally, and imposed a sanction that was too lenient.
The case involved a warrant officer from Nyanga police station in Cape Town who was arrested for theft from a Woolworths store at the Canal Walk shopping mall in January 2022. Court documents said the officer walked into the shop with a trolley containing empty plastic bags. When he walked out moments later, passing the pay point without paying, a security guard confronted him. He fled but was later apprehended.
The police charged him with misconduct and for tarnishing the SAPS’ reputation.
At the disciplinary committee’s hearing in February 2022, the cop argued he had 19 years’ service and was a first offender. He contended he had financial commitments and suffered from bipolar disorder. He submitted a medical report from a psychiatrist, confirming his condition, and that it was probable he absent-mindedly committed the offence.
However, the police argued that the offence was premeditated, and that he had ample time to explain himself when the guard arrested him.
In March 2022, the disciplinary committee chairperson sanctioned the cop to a two-month suspension. Police management then approached the labour court to have the sanction reviewed and set aside as unreasonable and unjustifiable.
Judge AJ Venter said the chairperson said she did not dismiss the cop because “he pleaded guilty and did not waste the employer’s time”, however, she had not provided any reason why the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors or whether the aggravating factors were even considered.
“There is also no indication of why she failed to consider the seriousness of the offence after her finding that the misconduct was, in fact, serious and premeditated,” the judge said. “There is clearly no consideration of prevailing case law dealing with theft, specifically when theft is committed by police officials.
“Her conclusion regarding the sanction appears to contradict the facts and evidence, and is unreasonable. Any reasonable decisionmaker would have concluded that suspension without pay was too lenient and that dismissal was appropriate,” said Venter.
“The sanction of suspension … is therefore replaced by an order that the employment of the [officer] be terminated with immediate effect.”
SowetanLIVE