IN THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING

HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

In the matter between:

PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY SOUTH AFRICA

Employer

and

DANIEL MOTSHUTSHI MTIMKULU

Employee

DISCIPLINARY HEARING OUTCOME

DATE OF HEARING: 20 August 2015

DATE OF FINDING: 21 August 2015

PRESENT
Shungu Mariti

Chairperson

Puke Maserumule

Initiator

Shumi Mokotedi

Employers Representative

Ernest Phakati

Employers Representative

Neileng Morwasela

Observer
1

1.
1.1.

INTRODUCTION
The Employees disciplinary hearing was held on 20 August 2015 at the offices
of Intercede in Illovo.

1.2.

The Employer presented two bundles, bundle A, comprising of the allegations

of misconduct against the Employee and bundle B, comprising of the
documents the Employer relied on.

2. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
2.1.

A request was made by representatives of Media 24 to be permitted to observe

the proceedings. There were no objections to this and the request was granted.

2.2.

The Employee did not attend the disciplinary hearing. Accordingly I was
required to make a determination on whether the hearing should continue in the
Employees absence.

2.3.

The Employer stated that prior to the Employee being charged it had become
public knowledge that he did not have qualifications. The Employee was
requested to provide proof of his qualifications, whereupon he tendered his
resignation. Therefore it was probable that the Employee would not attend the
hearing.

2.4.

The Employer attempted to serve the charges by way of personal service on

the Employee but found his place of residence deserted. The charges were
served on the Employee on 14 August 2015 by email, using the same email
address he (the Employee) used to tender his resignation. The hearing was
initially scheduled for 10h00 but was rescheduled to 14h00 on the same day.
The Employee was again notified by email of the change in time.

2.5.

Paragraph 6 of the allegations of misconduct states that should the Employee

fail to attend the hearing as scheduled, the inquiry will proceed in his absence.

2.6.

Having regard to the above I was satisfied that the Employee had been duly
notified of the charges and the place where and the time when the hearing
would be held. Further, the Employee had been cautioned that should he fail to
attend the hearing the hearing would continue in his absence. The hearing was
2

scheduled for 14h00 but commenced at 14h30, at which time the Employee
had still not arrived. Given the circumstances surrounding the allegations of
misconduct and the Employees subsequent resignation I agreed with the
Employer that the Employee was not likely to attend and ruled that the inquiry
should proceed in the Employees absence.
3.

THE STATUS OF THE HEARING

3.1.

I am required to determine whether or not the Employee is guilty of one or more

of the charges of misconduct brought against him.

3.2.

In doing so I had resort to the evidence submitted and submissions made by

the Employer.

4. ALLEGATIONS
The allegations brought against the Employee are contained in bundle A as follows;
CHARGE 1: GROSS DISHONESTY
It is alleged that you are guilty of gross dishonesty in that

you misrepresented to Prasa that you have the following qualifications:

National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and a B Tech degree in

Engineering: Maintenance from Vaal University of Technology;

Degree in Mechanical and Maintenance Engineering from Wits University;

Masters degree in Engineering; and

Doctorate degree in Engineering Management

when you knew that you do not possess the aforementioned qualifications.
CHARGE 2: FRAUD

Since 1 April 2010 to 30 June 2015, you received remuneration from PRASA
Rail totalling R15 187 604.49, based on your appointment as an Executive
Manager, payments which PRASA Rail would not have made to you, had it been
aware that you did not possess the qualifications that you claimed to have. You
are accordingly guilty of defrauding PRASA Rail of the amount of R15 187
604.49.
3

On or about 15 June 2015, you presented a letter purporting to be an offer from

DB Schenker in Essen in Germany, as a result of which PRASA Rail made you a
counter offer and increased your remuneration from R1 650 000.00 to R2 800
000.00 to match the DB Schenker offer, when the purported offer letter was in
fact a forgery as DB Schenker had in fact not offered you employment.

CHARGE 3: BRINGING THE NAME OF PRASA INTO DISREPUTE

On various occasions in the media, including radio, newspaper and magazines, you
claimed to have academic qualifications referred to in charge 1 above when you knew
that this claim was false, which has resulted in the name of PRASA being brought into
disrepute.
5.
5.1.

SUMMARY OF EMPLOYERS EVIDENCE

The Employer called Mr Mossenngwa Mofi the CEO of PRASA Rail as its first
witness. He referred to the documents in Bundle B and testified that:

5.2.1 When he joined the Employer the Employee was referred to as Dr Mtimkulu.
5.2.2 The Employee reported to him as Head of Engineering.
5.2.3 Page 1 of bundle B is the Employees personal profile. According to the profile
the Employee holds a Mechanical Engineering Diploma, Degree in Mechanical
and Maintenance Engineering, Masters Degree in Engineering and a doctoral
degree in Engineering Management. The profile would have been obtained from
the Employee.
5.2.4 On or about 06 July 2015 media reports began circulating questioning the
Employees credentials. He (the witness) discussed these reports with the then
Group CEO and they agreed that an inquiry into the allegations should be
conducted. He subsequently requested the Human Resources Manager to
conduct an inquiry into the Employees qualifications.
5.2.5 On 10 July 2015 he informed the Employee in writing that the Employer was
conducting a formal inquiry into all his qualifications and requested the Employee
to provide proof of same by 14 July 2015.
5.2.6 The Employee submitted copies of a National Diploma in Mechanical
Engineering and a degree in Mechanical Engineering from VUT on 16 July 2015.
4

Copies of these certificates are on pages 14 and 15 of bundle B. The Employee

had the originals of these documents when he submitted them. He informed the
Employee that the inquiry into the qualifications would proceed. The following
day he received a sms from the Employee informing him that the qualifications
he had submitted had been forged. Therefore he took a decision to suspend the
Employee.
5.2.7 According to the Employees profile he had three other qualifications, other than
the ones he submitted. He (the witness) never received any proof of these.
5.2.8 On or about 22 July 2015 Ms Mokotedi forwarded a message to him from the
Employee. The message reads:
Director I was really embarrassed did not even know what to say [sic]. I have nothing
except few Engineering subject from VUT [sic]. I am really ashamed, my experience and
skills is the only thing that saw me through the ranks [sic]. I was embarrassed to say it. I
am sorry for letting you down and all Directors. I taught [sic] I will send an SMS separate.
Regards Mtimkulu.

5.2.9 Regarding charge 3.2 an offer was made to the Employee by the Employer for
R1 650 000.00 per annum, page 4 of bundle B, thereafter the Employee
claimed to have received an offer from DB Schenker in the amount of R2 800
000.00 and submitted the letter on page 6 of bundle B. On the strength of this
letter the Employer matched the offer of R2 800 000 from DB Schenker, page 8
of bundle B. The Employer requested its attorneys to verify this offer and
obtain copies of any qualifications he may have submitted to DB Schenker. DB
Schenker responded, page 12 bundle B, that it does not know the Employee
and that it never him. Further the letterheads of the company appeared to be
forged and the signature on the offer was definitely forged.
5.2.10 The Employees actions have had a negative impact on the image of the
Employer and has damaged its reputation. In the absence of contrary evidence
the Chairperson should find the Employee guilty and recommend a sanction of
dismissal.
5.2.11 The Employer has brought criminal charges of fraud against the Employee, he
was arrested and is currently out on R20 000.00 bail.

5.4 The Employer called Mr Ernest Phakati, the Acting HR Executive as its second
witness. Mr Phakati also referred to the documents in bundle B and testified that:
5.4.1 Pages 1 to 3 of bundle B are an excerpt from the Employees curriculum vitae
found in his personnel file. According to the Employees personal profile he holds
a Mechanical Engineering Diploma, Degree in Mechanical and Maintenance
Engineering, Masters Degree in Engineering and a doctoral degree in
Engineering Management.
5.4.2 Mr Mofi handed over to him (the witness) copies of certificates submitted to him
(Mr Mofi) by the Employee. He immediately noticed that the layout of the
certificates (from the same institution) was different. One had the emblem of the
institution on the left whilst the other had an emblem on the right. The emblem
and name of the institution were contained in a text box in one certificate yet in
the other they were outside the text box. The certificates appear on pages 14
and 15 of the bundle.
5.4.3 With the assistance of his secretary he wrote to VUT on 17 July 2015, page 18 of
the bundle B, inquiring of the Employees qualifications. The response from the
institution, on page 16 of bundle B, was that the Employee had not completed
the qualification of a National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.
5.4.4 He also checked the Employees personnel file and there were no qualifications
therein. To date there is no proof of any qualifications held by the Employee.
5.4.5 On pages 20 to 21 of bundle B is a report of all the monies paid to the
Employee by the Employer over a period of 12 months. According to the report
the Employee was paid R15 187 640.49.
6.

FINDINGS
6.1. The witnesses corroborated each others evidence. Both testimonies were
convincing and credible. They were able to identify and clearly explain the
documents the Employer relied on.
6.2. According to the excerpt from the Employees curriculum vitae the Employee
claimed to have the qualifications listed under charge 1 and the Employee was
referred to as Dr Mtimkulu. However when he was requested to provide proof of
the qualifications he only submitted what purported to be a national diploma and
6

a degree in engineering from VUT (although his personal profile states that he
obtained his degree from Wits).
6.3. When the two certificates are scrutinised it is clear that they are different
although they are from the same institution. When VUT was requested to verify
the two qualifications it was revealed that the Employee had never obtained
either qualification from it. The Employee had registered for the diploma but
never completed it.

To date the Employer is yet to receive proof of any

qualifications from the Employee. In addition the Employee admitted in a sms

message that he does not have any qualifications. I therefore find the Employee
guilty of charge 1: gross dishonesty. Since the Employee never obtained the
qualifications it follows that he is also guilty of forging the certificates something
he also admitted in a message to Mr Mofi.
6.4. The Employee has been receiving remuneration from the Employer since 1 April
2010. It is unclear exactly how much remuneration he has received in total.
However I find that the Employee obtained the remuneration paid fraudulently
because the offer and payments were made on the basis that the Employee had
the qualifications he claimed. Had the Employer been aware that the Employee
was unqualified it would not have made the payments to him. The Employer
also increased its initial offer on the strength of a letter from DB Schenker. DB
Schenker confirmed that it never made such offer to the Employee and that the
signature thereon was forged. Therefore the Employee fraudulently obtained a
remuneration increase by submitting a forged letter of offer from DB Schenker.
6.5. Both witnesses testified that the allegations regarding the Employees
credentials were reported by the media, in fact the inquiry into the Employees
qualifications was sparked by media reports. Mr Mofi testified that this had
damaged the image and reputation of the Employer. I find that the Employee
has indeed brought the name of PRASA into disrepute.
7.

RECOMMENDATION
The allegations brought against the Employee are very serious. The Employer
clearly views the misconduct in a very serious light to the extent that it has laid
criminal charges against the Employee. Having regard to the aforesaid and the
evidence submitted by the Employer I recommend that the Employee be
summarily dismissed.
7

SHUNGU MARITI
CHAIRPERSON
21 August 2015