Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • A Lire Le Rapport Du Comité Disciplinaire Du CEB.

    Diunggah oleh

    L'express Maurice
    4K tayangan12 halaman
    A lire le rapport du comité disciplinaire du CEB.

    Judul Asli

    A lire le rapport du comité disciplinaire du CEB.

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    A lire le rapport du comité disciplinaire du CEB.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    4K tayangan12 halaman

    A Lire Le Rapport Du Comité Disciplinaire Du CEB.

    Diunggah oleh

    L'express Maurice
    A lire le rapport du comité disciplinaire du CEB.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 12
    BACKGROUND INF¢ On the 3"! November 2015 a document purp Electricity Board (t er Exceutive of the Ministry 0 B Appanah a member of the Board of L Finance concerning the ‘Proposed Cons Power Plant-Les Grandes Salines Project” was tabled by the at the National Assembly Energy and Pu tors of the CEB from the Ministry of m and Combined Cycle Leader of the Opposition In onder to investigate the circumstances which had lead to the leakage of this EB decided to set up a Board of Enquiry with the sensitive information, the following terms of reference: TERMS OF REFERENCE: Determine the names and status of all the officers concerned who had access with the signed copy of the Letter dated 08 October 2015 mentioned above. 1 2. Confirm or otherwise whether a printed copy/copiesof the signed Letter dated 08 October 2015 has/have been effected indicating the name of the officer/officers involved and the whereabouts of such copies. a 3. Establish the responsibilities of each officer involved in printing of the letter or being recipient of a signed copy of the letter, dated 08 Octonber 2015 mentioned above and possible leakage thereof to any third party. 4, Propose any amendment deemed necessary in the administrative processing of critical documents to minimize the risk of Irakage in future, 5. Make any other recommendation(s), if any, deemed necessary. ‘The Board of Enquiry was chaired by Me. Kannen Cohinday and assisted by Messrs Soocramanien Vithilingem and Sadat manund Narain as Assessors. ‘The following witnesses were called to depone and documents were produced and marked accordingly. They deponed in the following order: Mr IL, Bakim, The Deputy General Man was assisted by Mr Yousouf Mohamed tes Mr Fakim who is the Dep) we ‘Important files’ in his of Piting of documents in the I jon Department and that of the GM ‘echnical are effected by Mr Bi nd Mr Hossen According to the witness, the GM's office also must have a eopy of the Letter cr deponed on the 16 March 2016, He aioe Counsel, The salient features of her wony are as follows: led in his Ministry of Amongst the documents that are annexed in the Letter that cofliee, the only document that are missing in the letter fro Agriculture, It was on the 14% December 2015 that he became aware of for the first time of the existence of the Letter in his file, It was while filing & press cutting, in his Kile Newspaper Cuttings’ that he noticed for the first time a copy of the Lotter in his file, It is his secretary or himself who do his filing, However, for the Letter it was not him who filed same. The Letter was not handed over to him personally. No record is kept at his office for the filing of documents, Despite the fet that he is the DGM piloting Les Grandes Salines project, it was only on the 14/12/15 that is more than two months after the Letter was. drafted and sent, that he went back to his file, Despite the fact that there were other press articles on the Les Grandes Salines project within the two aforesaid months, he didn’t file any of them, Despite the fact that there was big issue at the CEB following the tabling of the Letter by the Leader of the Opposition on the 3 November 2015, he did nothing to ascertain if there was a copy of the said Letter in his file “press cuttings on the Les Grandes Salines”. le didn’t try to ascertain how the Leade of the Le i Mr Hossenbaccus, Mr Boodoo and Persons who are anthorised to file docun ‘+ The Letter emanated from a copy that was filed He was involved in the drafting of the Leter, he was involved in the consultation with the legal advisor. He was fully aware being processed, Mr G, Hebrard, sal Manager deponed before the BoE. The salient features of his testimony are as follows ‘© Ile stoted that itis his Secretary who is in charge of the filing of documents st his office ‘= He cannot recall having been communicated 4 copy of the Letter. 1k was Mr. Nundlall who handed over the Letters for him to sign. Once signed, is ineumbent on Ms Caroline Nelzir to do the needfl for the dispatch, The Letter was a confidential document addressed to high-ranking officers, one from the Ministry of Finance and the other one is the Supervising Officer ai the Ministry of Public Utilities. ‘The document that was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition ie. the Letter emanated from a document that was filed at the CEB. Conclusions It is now well established that the way documents are filed at the CEB differs materially from that of the Civil Service. At the CEB documents are filed in ‘pack files? through two punched holes from the centre on the left hand side of the document as opposed to a single hole on the top left hand comer of a document within the Civil Service. Consequently, the BoE hereby finds that the document tabled by the Leader of Opposition in Parliament on the 3" November 2015, clearly emanated from one of the copies filed at the CEB (hereinafter referred to as the ‘filed version’). As per evidence adduced before the BoE, the following emplayees of the CEB had at Some point in time the Letter in their custody and/or or at the very least had access to Ms Caroline Nelzir is full ater of fuct othe istry on that day In view of the fact that the the fact that there is no witness's conclusion that Ms 8" October 2015. 2015 she reque On the 3 November ent. A copy of the Letter was in th W M und it was the latter who identified a copy « om Production Department's file. f the Production e obtained a copy of the Letter from Mr Noor Hossen « Department, He removed same from the file of Mr Mukoon. Jt was the firs time that she got hold of the signed copy of the Letter howing her a She did ask Ms Nelzir if she had seen the Letter before a copy of same but the latter stated that she had never seen same before, The GM is fully aware of all documents that are filed in his Registry. When shown the Letter, the witness stated that the way that the document was filed is for her indicative that the Letter emanated from the She drew the distinction between the way documents are filed at the CEB to that of the various ministries she deals with. ‘At the CEB documents are filed in pack files which necessitate that two holes are punched from the centre of the left hand side of the document while in the Ministries, there is a single punch on the top left hand comer of the document. The hand writing of the person who made the entry in the Despatch Book of the GM’s office is that of Caroline Nelzir. She confirmed that the two Letters were actually delivered to the two recipients on the same day i.e. 8 October 2015. It is the practice in the civil service that when a Ministry receive a document, the document is marked by way ofa stamp to confirm the date and time of receipt. Since the document which was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition bears no stamp whatsoever, she concluded that the Letter cannot emanate from cither the copy sent to the Senior Chief Executive of the Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities nor from the one sent to Mrs. Appanah. It must come from the one of the signed copies that were made at the CEB. At the CEB, there is no traceability of documents and files. A file or a document ean change hands without any records of the persons who received same. She was indeed the o; on the 8% October and cert who was replacing Ms Kursline Lamy as Secretary of the GM er 2015. She was adamant that she had never seen the Letter before aavelopes fordisterh on 8% November 2015. She was handed over two sealed Dake ees {0 dispatch and she recorded same as ‘closed covers’ in the Dispatch Book remiiting same to the driver Mr Meemeea for necdful to be done She maintained that she was never handed a copy of the Letter for the GM's record, Had she bees remitted a copy of the Letter, she would have uploaded same in the GM's Registry and leave a copy in the tray for Ms Kursline Lamy. The version of Mr Boodoo who confirmed that he gave instructions to Mr Chedumbnim to make only three (3) copies infra strengthens the version of Ms Nelzir to that effec and purposes Ms Caroline Nelzir seems to be a truthful witness. She may not rec:ll exactly what went on while she was replacing Ms Kursline Lamy on the 8" October 2015 but she gave us no reason to disbelieve her version of events. The Bol: accordingly finds that Ms Caroline Nelzir never had a copy of the Letter on or after the #° October 2015 and certainly not a filed version of same. Consequently, she coukin’t hve been the cause of the leakage of the Letter to any third party. Mr Moonsany Chedumbram The only acecss Mr Chedumbrum had to the unfiled version of the Letter was on the 8% October 215 when he was requested to make copies by either Mr Boodoo or Ms Caroline. He made the copies on the photocopying machine at the GM’s office and in the presence of “1s Caroline Nelzir and Mr Boodoo of the Production Department. He made co ies of same without reading the contents of Letter and handed over the originals anc’ tie three copies to the person who requested him to do the copies. He never came into contact with a filed version of the Letter. It is imposs!*c for him to have been the cause of the leakage of the Letter to any third Party. * Iler office is kept under lock and key in her absence or that of her replacement when she is on leave, The office attendant is the only person who has aceess to her office from 16:00 hrs to 17:30 hrs for cleaning purposes. After 17:30 hrs her office is lock until her retum to the office on the next day. The office Attendant, the GM and herself are the only three persons who have the keys of her office. * She has 100 % trust in the Office Attendant Mr Moonsamy. 6. Mr Meemeea, Driver/Office Attendant was called to depone on the 16" March 2016, He confirmed that on the 8° October 2015 he performed a special dispatch for the GM’s Office when he was given two sealed envelopes from Ms Caroline Nelzir, He delivered both letters to the addressees on the same day. Both envelopes were sealed when he delivered same, The Letters were delivered to the seeretaries/staff of the recipients and not directly to them. lient 7. Mr S. Mukoon, Production Manager deponed 16 March 2016, The features of her testimony are as follows: * Ile first became aware of the existence of the Letter on the day that it was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. + Ie was on leave on the 8% October 2015 when the Letter was drafted and dispatched to the recipients. He resumed duty on the 20 October 2015. ‘During his absence, it was Mr Nundlall Principal Engineer who was assigned eee seo j a the Oppo. Ages him to oper ie 3" November 2015 This gout “4s he allegedly did on would have at the ver j Ny did on the 14a ye i the very least prompted avian he 14" December 2915 v has serigus ce "tunity to wate h him depone an *8S 10 the credibility of his’ ‘ersion of events, ae ? alll the circus ircumstances of the we efore the Bol articularl anner matter, on a bal ea i ould be the place more eontrol vcr. ing ie Teakage due to the total lack of security and Recommens): sions Paragraph 4.0 se TOR To propose amen e teas mendment deemed necessary in the administrative processing of Mitieal doc 'Sto minimize the risk of leakage in future, a split ol’ cy ry precaution that any organisation may take to stop the leakage of formation — tained in in official documents, no system has up to now proved folpreo © ingenuity is such that it is capable of defeating the most rmctic ved systems. But every organisation has a need to classify some -onfidential and to restrict access thereto to a limited number of its To preserve confidentiality of documents ,at the end of the day, quality of human resources. The following factors have been vtial in the twin areas of human resources management and tion systems: informat’ vers able to differentiate between confidential and routine on. In the Civil Service e.g. confidential information is contained in files ha red cover to distinguish it from other routine information com i in blue files and highly confidential matters contained in files mai ‘or restricted circulation” which are in the custody of the Chief e Furthermore, all confidential papers are marked “confidential “on ght hand comer. If information is virtual, selected officers are prov with a code for access, vrs who are handling confidential information (Senior Officers, “al Assistants, Administrative Assistants) trustworthy and do they ck record of loyalty and political neutrality? Are they capable of g the confidentiality of documents which they come across in the cours — their official work? (©) Ar . cedures for the safe keeping of sensitive information periodically reviy when such procedures have proved inadequate? In the case of the cH ugement have experienced leakages a number of times, In the ese © freedom of information legislation, some information may have called on 24" February 2 © One of his duties as Office Atte of c ‘opy machine is in the Confidential Secretary's «He does not peruse docum: iven to him to photocopy. He cannot cument B on the 8® October 2015. recall if he photocopied the and Confidential Secretary to the Ms Kursline Lamy, Administ s GM deponed on 16" March 2016. The salient features of her testimony are as follows: She stated at the outset that the GM did not have a signed copy of the Letter prior to same being tabled before the National Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition. She was on leave on the 8" October 2015. ‘A copy of all outgoing letters signed by the GM and incoming letters received by the GM is scanned and uploaded in the “GM’s Registry’. ‘At the material point in time i.e. 8° October 2015, there were only two persons who could upload any document in the GM’s Registry; the witness herself or in her absence, Ms Caroline Nelzir, the only two persons who had access to the GM’s Registry. In her absence, she gave instructions to Ms Caroline Nelzir to make a photocopy of all documents received and sent by the GM and to keep same in a tray on the witness’s desk, On the 3% November 2015 after the Letter was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, she looked for the document in the GM’s Regisity but couldn’t find any trace of same. The Letter was not uploaded in the GM’s Registry on the 8" October 2015 nor was there a copy of same in her tray. She stated that had her replacement, Ms Caroline Nelzir, been given a signed copy of the Letter on the 8 October 2015, the latter would have uploaded the Letter on the same day and put a copy of the letter in her tray. Although Of their resp the Bok to . Copies of the Mr Fek n He is the De and the ‘Ty However signed by Mr Boodoo copy of the ! The Bok fin office of M: like the CEP. whom. Dov Confidentix: Fakim’s 0/7 files kep: 2: Mr Fakim office. Cont Fakim’s 0! The risk of Fakim's offi The Bol: fix drafting of required rec! He was no! nor was he records. Even when * same by the to ascertain : country was Moreover, pertaining te the numero: juiely no evidence by t oF al entioned emplo ‘ “tr or allowed other person(s) to have neecsay ee en ee y General Manage ager (Technical) of the CEB. As such the Produetion ission and Distribution Department fall under his responsibility, 1t Mr Fakim was involved in the drafting of the Letter, He even ate legal advisor of the CEB regarding same ’ fler the Letter was ‘48 not present at the office on the 8% October 201 M nor was he present when a copy of same was filed in his offic rere is also no evidence that he was informed by Mr Boodoo that @ er Was filed at his office in his absen hat the whole process and manner in which documents are filed at the kim to be utterly unprofessional and unacceptable for an organisation Absolutely no record are kept of any documents being filed and by nts are filed without the knowledge of Mr Fakim and/or his retary. Even in his absence and that of his Confidential Secretary, Mr remains open. Any employee of the CEB can have access to all the office in his absence and that of his Confidential Secretary. ‘bsolutely no control over the Letter nor of any documents filed at his to Mr Nundlall, Mr Mukoon and the GM’s Registry documents at Mr vere not kept in a secured manner. age of document and/or unauthorised access to documents kept at Mr s very high. it difficult to believe that as a DGM who was so involved in the Letter failed to even enquire if same had been dispatched to the xts on the 8° October 2015. 2 interested in taking cognizance of the signed version of the Letter crested in knowing whether a copy of same has been filed in his etter became public on the 3 November 2015 through the tabling of der of the Opposition, he didn’t even take the pain of checking his file «had a copy or at least take cognizance of the document the whole

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai