The appeal by a former Gauteng school director against his dismissal for the improper use of public funds was rejected by the Education Labour Relations Council.
Arbitrator's Decision
Senior ELRC Arbitrator Koen Haenga ruled that the dismissal of P. Banga by the Gauteng Department of Education was fair both substantively and procedurally, thereby rejecting his application for reinstatement with full benefits.
Circumstances of Dismissal
Banga worked in the department since April 2013 and held the position of Director of Northview High School before being demoted to Deputy Principal following another arbitration hearing that annulled his appointment as director. His subsequent dismissal resulted from allegations of financial misconduct committed while serving as acting director.
The department brought four charges against Banga for misconduct under the Educators Employment Act. These charges included alleged use of school funds to purchase goods worth R23,497 for personal use at Makro, using school money to pay R1,396 for a television license, failure to submit supporting documents for school expenditures totaling R16,770.57, and authorizing cash withdrawals and 'cash send' transactions amounting to R25,280 while the school's bank card was in his possession.
Witness Testimony
During the arbitration, the department relied heavily on the testimony of school administrative staff member Pamela Ditodi. She stated that she accompanied Banga to Makro after the school returned two previously purchased laptops, leaving a credit balance on the school account. According to Ditodi, Banga took a television, a laptop, and a projector, and then used school funds to complete the purchase.
Ditodi also reported that when the cashier requested a valid television license to process the TV purchase, Banga asked her to use it. The cashier discovered that her license was expired, costing R1,396, which Banga paid for using school funds before the purchase was finalized. Ditodi emphasized to the arbitrator that she never asked to have her television license paid for and received no benefit from this payment.
Furthermore, Ditodi claimed that after leaving the store, Banga arranged for the transportation of the television to an address she believed was his home, not the school. She added that the television, laptop, and projector were never entered into the school's asset register, despite her responsibility as an administrative staff member for registering newly acquired assets. Moreover, the equipment later presented during the school audit did not match the serial numbers and barcodes of the items purchased at Makro.
Defense Version and Findings
The departmental investigator, Mario Mandlazi, informed the arbitrator that Banga had the opportunity to explain the charges during the investigation but failed to provide a substantive response. He testified that repeated visits to the school yielded no evidence of proper registration or accounting of the purchased goods, and school records showed cash withdrawals and electronic money transfers that violated the department's financial policy.
In his defense, Banga rejected all charges. He insisted that the television, projector, and laptop were always intended for school use and claimed they were delivered directly to the school from Makro. He also maintained that the transaction was an exchange, not a new purchase, because the previously returned laptops were involved. He further argued that the school did not have an asset register functioning at the time and suggested that Ditodi and the former chairperson of the school governing body fabricated the charges against him following disagreements over procurement decisions.
Witnesses called by Banga confirmed seeing the equipment at the school and that the television was used during Grade 8 student orientations and other school events. However, many admitted that the purchases were never reported to the school governing body as required.
After reviewing the evidence, Haenga dismissed Banga's version, calling him an evasive witness whose claims of a conspiracy against him were not supported by credible evidence. The arbitrator found that the assertion that the Makro transaction was merely an exchange was a 'weak attempt' to excuse his non-compliance with established financial procedures. The arbitrator also determined that even if the equipment found at the school matched the items purchased at Makro, this did not absolve Banga of violating the financial control measures prescribed by departmental policy, South African Schools Act, and Educators Employment Act.
Haenga concluded that the department proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Banga committed all four offenses. He noted that the evidence showed Banga neglected the rules of financial management concerning public funds, and his actions constituted a serious offense. When assessing the appropriate sanction, the arbitrator emphasized that Banga held a high position of trust and was responsible for safeguarding public funds designated for student education. He concluded that the misuse and mismanagement of school finances undermined the department's ability to fulfill its constitutional and legislative obligations, and that dismissal served as an adequate deterrent given the prevalence of similar financial misconduct cases within the department. The decision also noted that Banga showed little remorse and continued to justify his behavior throughout the process, which satisfied the arbitrator by convincing him of the irreversible breakdown of trust between him and the department. The arbitrator stated that long service and a previously impeccable disciplinary record could not outweigh the seriousness of the offense. Since Banga did not dispute the procedural fairness of his dismissal, the arbitrator deemed this aspect fair before fully dismissing his claim.