Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Teaching Service Commission (TSC) has been ordered to disclose documents related to disciplinary proceedings brought by a secondary school teacher accused of abandoning his job.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad made the order yesterday as he partially upheld a lawsuit over the handling of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Brandon Ramcharan.
Ramcharan, a Teacher III assigned to the Malick Secondary School, made the request last year after he was accused by the commission of being absent without leave.
He requested a copy of his personnel file as well as copies of adverse reports which led to the disciplinary action.
In determining the case, Justice Seepersad ruled that the commission could not be faulted for not disclosing the file but allowing Ramcharan to view it and decide what specific aspects of it he wanted photocopies of because of its size.
“In the premises, this court holds that the position adopted by the defendant was reasonable and the claimant is free to effect the necessary arrangements to view his file and, thereafter, request copies of the documents which he wants,” Justice Seepersad said.
He also dismissed Ramcharan’s complaints over the commission’s delay in responding to his request, stating that the 46 days it took were not unreasonable or excessive.
He ruled that it was wrong to have refused access to the adverse reports on the basis that it may prejudice the investigation into him.
“In addition, no evidence has been adduced so as to suggest that disclosure of the requested documents would undermine the public interest or inhibit full and frank expressions of opinion during the Service Commissions Department (SCD)’s deliberative process with respect to the ongoing abandonment proceedings,” he said.
Justice Seepersad criticised the commission for seeking to rely on new legal arguments in response to the lawsuit.
Describing the position as “unfortunate and unaccepted,” he noted that it was not permitted to introduce new justification after its initial decision was challenged.
“In this case, the court is very unimpressed with the manner with which the defendant evaluated and processed the claimant’s information request,” he said.
Stating that Ramcharan was entitled to the documents needed for him to mount a defence, Justice Seepersad said that the commission could not seek to refuse disclosure on the basis that such was “internal working documents.”
“In a civilised and democratic country, natural justice demands that an accused person must be informed as to the nature of the particulars of the advanced accusation(s) and the position suggested in the defendant’s submissions that the requested information is exempt is absurd and devoid of merit,” he said.
He suggested that disclosure would facilitate enhanced transparency and accountability.
“This manner of disclosure removes suspicion and mistrust, engenders public trust and instils confidence in the conduct of public authorities,” he said.
He said that the case demonstrated the need for public service reform.
“It may be that the old and antiquated regulations which govern service commissions have to be blamed for the current state of malaise; however, urgent reform and realignment of attitudes is required, if the public service is to serve in a manner which is fit for purpose in 2026 and beyond,” he said.
Ramcharan was represented by Navindra Ramnanan and Ricky Pandohee.
The commission was represented by Evanna Welch, Dhalia Richardson, Sara Muslim and Cathy Ann Khan-Mathura.
