Mustafa v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mustafa v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2000] FCA 1897

SHAH MUSTAFA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK & ORS
N 1106 OF 1999

JUDGE:        WHITLAM J
DATE:          21 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:        SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1106 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHAH MUSTAFA
APPLICANT

AND:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRAHAM FRIEDMAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

MARY-ELLEN SWEENEY
THIRD RESPONDENT

NIGEL BUNN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time to commence this proceeding is extended to 28 September 1999.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of this motion, including any reserved costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1106 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHAH MUSTAFA
APPLICANT

AND:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRELINK
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRAHAM FRIEDMAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

MARY-ELLEN SWEENEY
THIRD RESPONDENT

NIGEL BUNN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	21 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time under s 11(1)(c) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (“the ADJR Act”). The subject decision was made on 9 August 1999 by a Disciplinary Appeal Committee constituted by the second, third and fourth respondents (“the DAC”) under s 63D of the Public Service Act 1922 (“the Act”). The last day of the prescribed period for the purposes of s 11(1)(c) of the ADJR Act was 10 September 1999. The applicant commenced this proceeding on 27 September 1999.

2. The applicant is a staff member of the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (“Centrelink”). He was charged with misconduct under s 61 of the Act in respect of five offences alleged to have been committed in September and October 1998. An inquiry officer found each of the charges proved and directed under s 62 of the Act that the applicant be demoted and transferred from Centrelink’s office at Campsie to its office at Liverpool. On appeal under s 63D of the Act, only one of the charges was found to be made out. The DAC set aside the direction relating to the four other charges. So far as the sole charge found to have been established was concerned, the DAC varied the decision appealed against and directed that the sum of $200 be deducted from the applicant’s salary. The DAC also ordered Centrelink to pay the applicant $5,710 for his costs incurred in the appeal.

3. A statutory record of the action taken under the Act is kept. This record was explained in a departmental minute dated 12 August 1999 that Centrelink addressed to the applicant:

   “As a result of action taken against you under section 62 of the Public Service Act an Official Conduct Record has been created.

   The Official Conduct Record (OCR) is a document that is retained on the inside cover of your personnel file.  It sets out…