Background
Mr Ramphal had worked for the civil service since 1995 and was employed as an Aviation Security Compliance Inspector by the Department for Transport. His role required extensive travel across a large territory — from Cornwall to Scotland — for which he was entitled to claim expenses and use a hire car paid for on a government credit card.
In February 2012, Mr Ramphal was selected at random for an audit of his transport and subsistence claims. A number of queries were raised about fuel expenditure, early morning coffees, and the use of hire cars. Mr Ramphal provided explanations for each item and repaid two charges that had been made in error — a meal (£13.45) and a petrol purchase (£23.58) — which he said had been made by mistake on the wrong card. His line manager had signed off all his expense claims at the time they were made.
Despite an initial meeting concluding that the items did not require further investigation, a more formal disciplinary process was launched. A manager, Mr Goodchild, was appointed to investigate and potentially act as the dismissing officer.
The HR problem — a report rewritten from scratch
This is where the case becomes important for employees. Mr Goodchild was inexperienced in disciplinary proceedings and throughout the process exchanged numerous communications with the HR department for guidance.
In his early drafts, Mr Goodchild's conclusions were broadly favourable to Mr Ramphal. He found:
- The misuse was not deliberate
- There was no compelling evidence that the Claimant's actions were intentional
- Mr Ramphal's explanations for his fuel expenditure were "plausible"
- He had made a "persuasive argument" and offered a "compelling and plausible justification"
On the basis of these findings, Mr Goodchild's initial recommendation was that Mr Ramphal was guilty of misconduct — not gross misconduct — and should receive a final written warning.
After extensive exchanges with HR, the report changed dramatically. Each favourable finding was removed. By the final version, Mr Goodchild concluded that Mr Ramphal was guilty of gross misconduct in relation to both the credit card misuse and the hire cars, and recommended summary dismissal. Mr Ramphal was dismissed without notice.
What the Employment Tribunal originally decided — and why it was wrong
The Employment Tribunal upheld the dismissal. It accepted that Mr Goodchild had made the final decision himself, and that he was entitled to seek guidance from HR. It found the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed. His Honour Judge Serota QC found that the Employment Tribunal had not asked the right questions. The central issue was not simply whether Mr Goodchild had made the final call — it was whether his decision had been improperly influenced by HR, and whether that influence had a material effect on his findings on culpability and the sanction imposed.
The Employment Tribunal had failed to explain what had caused Mr Goodchild to change his views so radically. No new evidence had come to light between the early drafts and the final report. The Employment Tribunal had given insufficient consideration to the possibility that Mr Goodchild had been inappropriately lobbied.
The legal principle — what employees can rely on
The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed a clear principle: an employee facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled to have their case decided by the appointed officer, without that officer having been lobbied by other parties as to the findings they should make on culpability.
Furthermore, if representations are made to the dismissing officer that go beyond legal and procedural advice, the employee should be informed so they can respond. Mr Ramphal did not know the contents of the HR communications that shaped the report against him.
The case was remitted to the original Employment Tribunal for fresh findings of fact on whether the HR advice was improper, and if so whether it materially affected the outcome.
What this means for employees
This case is one of the most useful in employment law for anyone facing a disciplinary process — particularly in larger organisations where HR plays an active role behind the scenes. It establishes that:
- The decision must be made by the appointed manager — not shaped by HR or others not present at the hearing
- If the investigating manager's conclusions change significantly during the process, this is grounds for challenge
- You are entitled to know if representations have been made to the dismissing officer that go beyond procedural advice
- A Subject Access Request can be used to obtain emails, drafts and communications between HR and the dismissing manager that you would not otherwise see
If you are facing a disciplinary process, use our SAR Toolkit to request all personal data held about you — including internal communications. Draft reports, HR advice, and email chains between HR and your manager are all potentially disclosable, and they may be crucial evidence if you later challenge your dismissal.
If you have already been dismissed and believe the process was influenced in this way, see our Employment Tribunal Toolkit for guidance on how to bring a claim.