IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
AT SUVA

PSDT CASE No. 01 of 2025

BETWEEN	:	THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE
EMPLOYER

AND	:	KAMAL GOUNDAR
EMPLOYEE

Appearances
For the Employer	: Mr. Chauhan with Mr. Chand (A G’s Chamber)
For the Employee	: Mr. Maharaj V

Date of Hearing	: 18 July 2025
Date	of Ruling	: 19 September 2025

RULING ON REINSTATEMENT OF SALARY

Background

1.	Mr. Kamal Goundar has been employed with the Ministry of Finance since March 2006 in various positions. He has been the Head of Strategic Planning, National Development and Statistics since 13 June 2023.

2.	 He was suspended by the Ministry of Finance (“Ministry”) with pay on 18 April 2024.

3.	The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry following the Employee’s suspension had referred the matter to the Public Service Disciplinary Tribunal on 10 March 2025. The referral to the Tribunal was accompanied by the suspension of Mr. Goundar’s salary.

4.	The Memorandum to the Chair of Public Service Disciplinary Tribunal dated 21 May 2025 preferred the following allegations against Mr. Goundar:

Charge 1- Breach of Section 6(4) of the Civil Service Act 1999, which states that an employee, when acting in the course of employment in the public service, must comply with all applicable Acts and subordinate legislation. The officer verbally instructed a Finance Officer to obtain quotations from other suppliers that were higher than the quote from his preferred supplier (RC Manubhai), in violation of the Procurement Regulations 2010.

Charge 2 – Breach of Section 6(3) of the civil Service Act 1999, which states that an employee, when acting in the course of employment in the public service, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without coercion or harassment of any kind. The officer violated personal boundaries, particularly those of female staff, by lingering close to them without consent.

Charge 3- Breach of Section 6(3) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer made inappropriate remarks about female staff during grog sessions and insinuated to staff in another department his intention to pursue a relationship with a female relative working in the SPO, (Sexual references).

Charge 4- Breach of Section 6(3) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer mistreated officers and regularly engaged in verbal abuse. As Head (SPO), he frequently mistreated staff in front of colleagues by raising his voice, using harsh and derogatory statements, and publicly disrespecting staff.

Charge 5- Breach of Section 6(2) of the Civil Service Act 1999, which states that an employee must act with care and diligence in the course of employment in the public service. The officer regularly sent unsubstantiated email complaints to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in staff members’ personal files without prior discussion, causing significant mental stress, to the extent that some staff members have frequently taken sick leave to seek medical advice. The officer also imposed unrealistic deadliness, overloading staff with work and causing stress. 

Charge 6- Breach of Section 6(12) of the Civil Service Act 1999, which states that an employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the Civil Service Values and the integrity  and good reputation of the public service. The officer indirectly pressured staff to consume kava every afternoon and evening, targeting those who refused to join him. He refused to engage with staff who did not participate and assigned them excessive workloads with tight deadlines undermining their ability to work effectively and freely express their opinions.

Charge 7- Breach of Section 6(2) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer compelled staff to work late evenings and weekends to meet unreasonable deadlines, yet refused to approve their overtime claims. As a result, several current and recently resigned employees have been forced to forfeit their entitlements due to this practice.

Charge 8- Breach of Section 6(4) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer unreasonably delayed granting annual leave to staff, dictated leave schedules, penalized staff for taking bereavement leave by demanding death certificates, and deducted salaries for sick leaves despite the submission of medical certificates. Staff were still expected to meet deadlines even when on sick leave without sick sheet, annual leave, etc.

Charge 9- Breach of Section 6(1) of the Civil Service Act 1999, which states that an employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of employment in the public service. The officer made biased decisions regarding overseas travel, favoring staff based on personal preference. Officers selected for workshops or training were not necessarily those directly involved in the relevant area.

Charge 10- Breach of Section 6(3) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer forced staff to undertake responsibilities outside SPO’s mandate, despite SPO not being an implementing agency (e.g. Free GP Scheme rollout and Termite Infestation assistance).

Charge 11- Breach of Section 6(2) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer sent emails and requested updates at night (1a.m), causing significant mental stress and sleep deprivation.

Charge 12- Breach of Section 6(3) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer failed to resolve staff conflicts professionally. He yelled at and reprimanded staff for exercising their initiative. Two officers were verbally reprimanded in a high tone for responding to the Hon. Minister’s direct request to accompany him to a meeting with Fiji Airways on April 4, 2024, without prior consent.

Charge 13- Breach of Section 6(40 of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer made biased decisions regarding the use of government transport. Staff were required to work overtime on weekends but were often forced to find their own transport. Additionally, government transport was directed for non-official purpose.

Charge 14- Breach of Section 6(12) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer failed to acknowledge staff efforts and accomplishments, often ridiculing them and suggesting that their work was only completed due to his leadership.
Charge 15- Breach of Section 6(4) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer disregarded the advice of other Heads of Department and took on responsibilities outside his job description, including: 
i.	Managing assets (e.g., Level 2 Conference room) and executing office refurbishment work, which falls under the remit of the office Accommodation Section, despite staff advisement.
ii.	Procuring goods and services (e.g., stationery, workstations, chairs, and fit-outs), which falls under the Administration Division and Office Services within the Ministry.

Charge 16- Breach of Section 6(3) of the Civil Service Act 1999. The officer publically shamed and demoralized staff through verbal retorts. 

5.	Mr. Goundar through his solicitor filed a Motion and Affidavit on 19 June 2025 seeking to reinstate his salary to the previous amount of $3978.69 from the date of suspension.

6.	The Employer filed an Affidavit in response of one Snay Kumar, Manager Human Resources from the Ministry of Finance on 4 July 2025.

7.	A further Affidavit in Reply was filed by Mr. Goundar on 9 July 2025.

8.	Both parties also filed written submissions.

SUBMISSIONS

Employee

9.	Mr. Goundar’s written submissions were supplemented by oral submissions presented by his counsel.

10.	The gist of the submissions in support of his application for reinstatement were as follows:

(i)	Mr Goundar was now financially supporting his mother after his father passed away on 13th March 2025; 
(ii)	He had to finance his father’s 16 days funeral rituals at considerable expense
(iii)	He had to pay rent for his flat in Suva in the sum of $1200 per month excluding utilities.
(iv)	He had to finance the repair for the truck and tractor used on the cane farm as well as pay TLTB rent for the farm.
(v)	He had to pay for the repairs to his personal vehicle.

(vi)	he was now facing financial hardship as a result of the suspension of his salary considering his commitments supporting himself and his elderly mother and looking after the cane farm. 

   Employer

11.	The Ministry opposed the application for reinstatement of pay. It notes that the Tribunal has powers under Regulation 23 (7) of the Civil Service (General) Regulations to reinstate the pay of an employee.

12.	The employer relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Public Service Commission v Atelaite Rokosuka (PSDT No. 05 of 2024) and the High Court in State v Public Service Disciplinary Tribunal, Ex parte Turaganivalu [2017] FJHC 434; Judicial Review HBJ 12 of 2015 (6 June 2017).

13.	The above decisions were relied upon to form the view that the nature of the allegations were such that it did not warrant a reinstatement of salary.

14.	The employee was charged with serious breaches of the Code of Conduct which included obtaining higher quotation from preferred supplier, violation of personal boundaries, making inappropriate remarks about female staff and mistreatment of staff to name a few and hence the salary should not be reinstated given the seriousness of the charges.

15.	The Employer also submitted that whilst they were sympathetic to the employee’s personal circumstances, Mr. Goundar had made substantial withdrawals in the sum of $65714.59 since August 2025 and was not reflective of a person facing financial hardship or loss of salary.

DISCUSSION

16.	The Tribunal on the day of hearing had made preliminary observations to the fact that the evidence on financial commitment was not clear as some expenses such as the vehicle repair had not been incurred and others related to the estate of Mr. Goundar’s late father.

17.	It also acknowledged that the relative seriousness of the allegations, that is, breach of trust would play a role in the Tribunal’s decision similar to that which was decided in Rokosuka (supra) and Turaganivalu (supra).

18.	Whilst noting the above discussions, a few things are abundantly clear, that is:

i.	the salary of Mr. Goundar has been suspended since 18 April 2025.

ii.	there is some evidence of financial commitment on behalf of Kamal Goundar. 

iii.	Kamal Goundar has the alternative option of relocating from Suva to minimize his expenses and continue to support his mother.

iv.	the allegations against Kamal Goundar are serious as they allege ‘breach of trust’, mistreatment of staff as well as some financial implications/loss to the Ministry.

v.	pursuant to Regulation 23 (7) of the Civil Service (General) Regulations 1999, the Tribunal has to consider whether it is appropriate to order partial or full reinstatement.

vi.	Mr. Goundar has denied all allegations against him and the matter is undergoing pre-trial processes and a hearing date to be fixed at the earliest available date.

19.	While the Tribunal holds no view as yet to the viability or other wise of the Ministry’s case against Mr. Goundar, the Tribunal is obliged to balance the interests of the parties to find a just solution.

DECISION

20.	The Tribunal considering the above discussions finds it just to order as follows:

i.	Kamal Goundar’s salary from 18 April 2025 until the conclusion of this matter shall be suspended.

Signed __________________________________
       Hon. Justice Anare Tuilevuka
	     [Chairman – Public Service Disciplinary Tribunal] 
Date: 19 September 2025

Signed ___________________________________
		Resident Magistrate Deepika Prakash
		[Member - Public Service Disciplinary Tribunal]
Date: 19 September 2025

Signed ___________________________________
		Resident Magistrate Jeremaia N.L Savou
[Member - Public Service Disciplinary Tribunal]
Date: 19 September 2025