Public Service Commission reprimands Police Commissioner

The PSC is responsible for taking disciplinary action against government employees found guilty of crimes or other cases of abuse.

The two separate cases were only brought to the attention of  the PSC for the first time during 2010… even if criminal proceedings in both cases had been initiated in 2004.

The PSC’s latest annual report reveals that it had requested the authorities to draw the attention of the Commissioner of Police to investigate whether there were grounds for disciplinary action against any police officer for failing to inform the government departments when their employees were arraigned on criminal charges.

One of these cases was brought to the attention of the Commission only after the accused officer had been found guilty by the Criminal Courts and, consequently, had to be recommended by the Commission for dismissal, the report reveals.

The commission also brought to the attention of the Police Commissioner another case concerning the erroneous interpretation of a Court judgment in the police report to the Commission on the case.

This interpretation misled the Commission into recommending a penalty on the basis of a guilty verdict when, in fact, the Court had declared that there were no grounds for the case to proceed.

The report states that the PSC has on several occasions brought to the attention of the administration, the problems created when other entities failed to submit adequate and prompt information regarding criminal proceedings instituted against public officers.

“With regret, the Commission noted that this situation continued to prevail during 2010”.

The Commission was particularly concerned about the consequences resulting from delays in the case of serious crimes like defilement of minors and drug trafficking, which merit the interdiction of the accused officer at the initial stage of the proceedings in terms of the PSC Disciplinary Regulations.

In September 2010, the Commission also drew the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of Transport Malta after he failed to reply in a timely manner to repeated requests by the Commission for updates concerning an interdicted officer who had been found guilty of unlawful exaction, and whose case was under appeal.

The Commission also requested the Ministry for Gozo to investigate why it had been informed, erroneously, that no appeal was lodged following a Court judgment in which a public officer was found guilty of possession of child pornography. The error of the ministry misled the Commission to take premature action.