and later (at p.17-18): intention of the Legislature of misconduct inquiries handled (sic) ‘The expeditiously should be complied with. Imagine a staff member who is suspended with his emoluments and his enquiry is only finalized after a number of years have gone by and he is convicted of the misconduct. He would not be working while earning his emoluments and if convicted he would have earned benefits which he would not have earned had the enquiry been expeditiously finalized. Ms Sibolile submitted that non compliance with section 26(6) do (sic) render the inquiry a nullity. I do not agree. It appears that it must have been the intention of the Legislature that the inquiry envisaged by section 26(6) of the Act would be commenced within 21 days of the establishment of the disciplinary committee. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the legislative provisions making provision for the commencement of the inquiry within the specified period. It was never the intention of the Legislature that non compliance with the provisions of section 26(6) had no sanctions and that the disciplinary committee can commence the inquiry at any other period. The provisions concerning the commencement of the inquiry within 21 days after the establishment of the disciplinary committee are peremptory and failure to comply with the provisions renders the inquiry a nullity.’ (See also p.21; p.26). [40] The Labour Court relied on the Public Service Staff Rules to fortify it in its conclusion at p. 26 that: the committee has been established the time clock of the 21 days starts ‘Once ticking and the inquiry must commence before the 21 days expires (sic). ……. [41] After having considered several of the Public Service Staff Rules, the Labour Court concluded that (at p.28):
and later (at p.17-18): ‘The intention of the Legislature of misconduct inquiries handled (sic) expeditiously should be complied with. Imagine a staff member who is suspended with his emoluments and his enquiry is only finalized after a number of years have gone by and he is convicted of the misconduct. He would not be working while earning his emoluments and if convicted he would have earned benefits which he would not have earned had the enquiry been expeditiously finalized. Ms Sibolile submitted that non compliance with section 26(6) do (sic) render the inquiry a nullity. I do not agree. It appears that it must have been the intention of the Legislature that the inquiry envisaged by section 26(6) of the Act would be commenced within 21 days of the establishment of the disciplinary committee. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the legislative provisions making provision for the commencement of the inquiry within the specified period. It was never the intention of the Legislature that non compliance with the provisions of section 26(6) had no sanctions and that the disciplinary committee can commence the inquiry at any other period. The provisions concerning the commencement of the inquiry within 21 days after the establishment of the disciplinary committee are peremptory and failure to comply with the provisions renders the inquiry a nullity.’ (See also p.21; p.26). [40] The Labour Court relied on the Public Service Staff Rules to fortify it in its conclusion at p. 26 that: ‘Once the committee has been established the time clock of the 21 days starts ticking and the inquiry must commence before the 21 days expires (sic). ……. [41] After having considered several of the Public Service Staff Rules, the Labour Court concluded that (at p.28):
Simataa%20v%20The%20Public%20Service%20Commission%20(A12-2003)%20[2013]%20NAHCMD%20306%20(30%20October%202013).docx