Makupula dismisses principal after hearing
EDUCATION MEC Mandla Makupula has fired a principal found guilty of making lewd comments to schoolgirls and then beating them for rejecting his advances.
The Daily Dispatch reported last month on how Phindile Magalela had earned more than R1.9-million sitting at home while lawyers argued over his sanctions for three years.
Magalela, 48, was a school principal at J M Ndindwa High School in Balfour outside Fort Beaufort.
He was suspended on September 11 2013, and eventually found guilty for misconduct last September. He was also found to have mismanaged R317 316.79 in school funds.
The charges of lewd conduct related to improper proposals and advances that three girls aged 19 to 20 said had occurred at the school between April 2012 and May 2013. He was also charged with administering harsh corporal punishment against the girls when they rejected him.
The damning findings were incorporated in a 45-page disciplinary hearing report drafted by labour relations arbitrator Enoch Khumalo, who was appointed by the department to deal with the case.
Khumalo found against Magalela on all counts and recommended that he be demoted and his salary cut.
The department was represented by its lawyer, advocate Sally Collette, who appealed against Khumalo’s sanctions.
Collette argued that Magalela should be charged under Section 17 of the Employment of Educators Act, which carries a mandatory dismissal instead of the more lenient sanctions contained in Section 18 of the act.
Magalela was represented by Java Mama Attorneys.
The Dispatch has seen a letter Makupula wrote to Magalela and Mama informing the parties of his decision.
In the letter Makupula states: “The reasons for my decision are as follows: The employee was found guilty of three charges.
“The employer lodged an appeal against the sanction of demotion imposed by the presiding officer contending that the employee was charged in terms of Section 17(1)(d) of the Employment of Educators Act no. 76 of 1998 and if found guilty, the mandatory sanction is dismissal.
“I have considered the ground of appeal raised by the employer.
“The wording of Section 17 of the EEA unequivocally refers to a mandatory sanction of dismissal in event of an employee being found guilty of an offence contained in that section.
“The presiding officer did not have a discretion to impose any other sanction in the circumstances for charge 6.2 other than a dismissal.
“The sanction of demotion relating hereto is substituted with the sanction of dismissal.”
Called for comment Mama confirmed his client was dismissed but added he had not received instructions on how to proceed.
Education spokesman Malibongwe Mtima declined to comment, saying the department was adhering to employer-employee confidentiality.