I had felt thoroughly dissatisfied with the court proceedings and on 13 March 2006 I wrote to the Customer Service Unit, The Court Service, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT, concerning the inaction by Medway County Court on my Application Notice dated 22 May 2005, that: Please refer to your Case Number TO01934/CSU00210 dating back to 2001 which was the subject of a petition of mine to Her Majesty the Queen. I attach herewith a copy of my Application Notice dated 22 May 2005 to the Medway County Court to restore my Case against the University of Greenwich and co-defendants for which I have paid the Court Fee of £50 required for its processing. No action has been taken by the Court on the Application Notice and no explanation has been offered. Please let me know what avenues are now open to me in the British Justice System to seek compensation from those who conspired to destroy my reputation and my scientific career maliciously. The Customer Service Unit wrote back that my complaint did not come under Her Majesty's Court Service remit and it had sent my letter to Medway County Court to investigate.
On 28 March 2006 I wrote to Mr Paul Clark, the local Member of Parliament under COMPLAINT FOR REFERRAL TO THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN. I contacted your office between 11 and 15 February 2001 and spoke with Ann Davis and wrote a letter to you on 14 February 2001 sent by Fax to your House of Commons office where I spoke with Julie. It concerned gross maladministration at Medway County Court in the administration of justice. My Case against the University of Greenwich and coconspirators bent on ruining my reputation and scientific career was struck out by the Court on spurious grounds, and as the attached documents will show all attempts to have the Case restored is met by a blank wall of silence from Medway County Court. I have complained about this matter to the Customer Service Unit, Her Majesty's Court Service (part of the Lord Chancellors Department) but as its letter dated 21 March 2006 shows it has decided that the complaint does not fall within its remit and has referred the matter back to the Court which remains unresponsive. I would therefore wish to take this matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate but this requires me to approach my Constituency MP who should refer the matter to the Ombudsman. I would be grateful if you would kindly look into the matter as appropriate and let me know if you are agreeable to this course of action.
On 31 March 2006 I received a letter dated 30 March 2006 from Medway County Court stating that I have recently been forwarded a letter from Customer Service Unit in respect of your application filed in the ME010463 in May 2005. Firstly I would like to sincerely apologise that the Court has failed to process your application. This was an administrative error, and your application was placed on the Court file and not actioned. Due to delays you have experienced in this matter, could you please confirm to me whether you would like this application processed and listed for a hearing, or if the matter has now concluded. If you do not want the application listed, the Court will refund you the Court Fee of £50 that you have paid when you filed your application. If you do require the application to be processed, the Court will of course give you the earliest hearing date possible. Once again please accept my apologies for the delays you have experienced in this case. I will await to hear from you before taking any further action.
I replied to the letter that I have still not received any part of the Statutory Sick Pay followed by Incapacity Benefit that I was entitled to from September 1998 to date (please refer to my faxed letter to you dated 30 March 2005) and have suffered financial hardship as a result. I therefore wish my Application Notice dated 22 May 2005 to be processed by the Court as soon as possible.
On 1 April 2006 I sent a letter to Dr G. Poulter, Director of Natural Resources Institute, The University of Greenwich about the forthcoming Court Hearing on ME010463 and a four page skeletal argument that I would be relying on at the Hearing for the University's comments and proposals for settlement. Dr Poulter did not reply. The Medway County Court arranged a Court Hearing for 14 June 2006. I wrote to the Court asking what had been decided by the Court on the issue of the co-defendants of this Claim in order that the appropriate documents may be served on them. I have only listed the co-defendants as being the British Society of Animal Science, British Poultry Science Journal and World Poultry Science Association-UK Branch; however the Department of Works and Pensions may also qualify as one. The Court did not reply.
The solicitors acting for the University wrote on 10 April 2006 to the Medway County Court that 'we are somewhat surprised to learn that this matter has been re-listed, given that Dr Panigrahi's original action (which to all intents and purposes, is identical to the claim that he now seeks to resurrect) was struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for claim and for being an abuse of the process of the Court on 17 April 2001. As you will see from the Order, the Claimant was required to pay £755 costs by 25 April 2001. Although he paid a total of £150, he has made no payments since July 2003 and the amount now outstanding together with interest amounts to approximately £950. We would respectfully point out that there is nothing in the Claimant's application that can possibly be said to constitute any ground for the Court to exercise its discretion to set aside the original Order. Even if the application did disclose a proper ground for allowing the same to proceed to a hearing, the Claimant's application is far too late coming, as it does, almost five years after the Order which he seeks to set aside. Further and in the alternative, even if the Claimant's application were in time, we would respectfully submit that his original claim has no prospect of success whatsoever. Further and in the alternative, we would submit that our client would be severely prejudiced if this claim were allowed to proceed given that the events about which the Claimant complains occurred some seven and a half years ago. With respect to the Court, we would submit that the Claimant's application is co clearly hopeless and without merit that it should be dismissed without our client incurring the costs of having to attend a hearing. In the alternative, we would submit that the application should be stayed generally until such time as the Claimant has paid the costs due under the Order of 17 April 2001 on the basis that, if our client were to incur the costs of attending a further hearing there would, on the face of it, appear to be no realistic prospect of them recovering the totality of their costs. We would further respectfully point out to the Court that the Claimant has been seeking to litigate his claim against our client in both the Employment Tribunal and the County Court since his dismissal from our client's employment in October 1998. To date, all of his claims have either been dismissed or struck out and, in the circumstances, we would respectfully submit that this is a case where the Court should consider making a Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant. In view of the circumstances of this case, we have not sought to issue a formal application to have the Claimant's application dismissed without a hearing but, if it is necessary for us to do so, please let us know as a matter of urgency.'
The Medway County Court replied to this letter that 'The District Judge having considered your letter dated 10 April 2006, directs that the hearing on14 June 2006 stands. He does so on the following grounds. If the Court made an Order on the Claimants latest application of its own initiative which is what the Defendant's Solicitors are inviting it to do CPR 3.3 (5) applies and the Claimant will be able to make a further application. The Court takes the view that the overriding objective would be best met by the current application being considered at a hearing. If the Application is dismissed the court can consider inter alia making a civil restraint Order pursuant to CPR 23.12. The correspondence is being copied to the Claimant.'
I revised my skeleton argument for the Hearing to include Defamation as being the primary objective of the Application, and sent it to both the Defendant's solicitor and the Court.
CLAIMANT'S SKELETON ARGUMENTS FOR THE HEARING OF ME010463 AT 14:00 ON 14 JUNE 2006
1. The University of Greenwich was sent, on 1 April 2006, the following arguments (summary of criminal harassment at the University, specific substantive points and conclusion) for its comments and proposals for settlement, but there was no reply from the University.
OUTLINE OF CASE
1. Defamation. My Application Notice dated 22 May 2005 requests the Medway County Court to restore my Claim in ME010463. In this case I am suing the University of Greenwich for Defamation for stating in written form that I was blameworthy of gross misconduct during my period of employment. Any individual has a right to enjoy freedom from unfair attacks on their reputation. Defamation describes a cause of action whereby a person can sue to protect his reputation in the face of a statement about him which is untrue and lowers his reputation in the eyes of a right-thinking person. The law provides for exemplary damages to punish a defendant whose conduct has been wholly inappropriate. I had a long established and unblemished scientific career during which I never harboured any ill-feelings towards anyone nor had I encountered any ill-feelings from anyone at the workplace. I secured two promotions and was earning £30,000 pa. Within two years of the University of Greenwich taking over the Institute I was being attacked weekly and eventually got labeled as being a person of gross misconduct and was dismissed from service. I intend to prove to the Court that this act of the University amounted to Defamation from which I could not recover. In this act the sole objective of the University was to tarnish my international reputation.
2. Whilst the overriding objective of this Claim is to sue for defamation a secondary objective is to seek compensation for criminal harassment with intentional damage to my career and reputation perpetrated on me by the University of Greenwich and co-defendants. My original statement of claim read: damages due to me arising from loss of my scientific career by the criminal actions against me of the University of Greenwich and co-conspirators as described in the 22-page attachment-document lodged in Medway County Court. The co-conspirators (the co-defendants of this case) are the British Society of Animal Science, British Poultry Science Journal, and the World Poultry Science Association-UK Branch. Staff of these institutions combined with those of the University of Greenwich to destroy my18 year scientific career by harassing me, instituting false charges of gross misconduct in employment against me, suspending my scientific work, terminating my employment, not paying my redundancy pay entitlement, terminating my editorship of the prestigious British Poultry Science Journal, and not cooperating with me in a scientific Symposium to which I was invited as a speaker. In the words of Dr B. Blake, Head of Natural Resources Management Department, Natural Resources Institute, the most important thing was to sort me out. This they did as from living a healthy and financially well off life as an international scientist with over 35 scientific publications to my credit, I suffered a nervous breakdown and subsequently became unemployable for any decent job. I am currently employed as a part-time cleaner.
3. As a result of the University's actions and the intransigence of the Department of Works and Pensions I have not been paid the statutory sick pay and Incapacity Benefit to which I am entitled from 1 October 1998 until 7 July 2004.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the Industrial Tribunal did not allow a consideration of cases for Unfair Dismissal and Racial Discrimination because my application was submitted outside the three-month time limits, it is argued that the individual actions of the University and co-conspirators against me remain civil offences and are therefore punishable through a County Court instead.
5. The damages due to me include (a) compensation for defamation (b) my redundancy pay entitlement from the University (official redundancy payment of over £55,000); (c) compensation for damage to my career (legal redress value to be assessed); (d) loss of my sick pay and Incapacity Benefit (amount to be quantified); and (e) costs of the case.
SUMMARY OF CRIMINAL HARASSMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY
1. Since the F0004 'false pretences' incident, staff of the University engaged in systematic criminal harassment on me over a period of one and half years leading up to 24 April 1998. From September 1997, this harassment took place almost on a weekly basis, the objective being seemingly to demoralise me and to destroy my international reputation. When these failed, staff engaged in provocation to get me to respond in such a manner that could then be construed as constituting misconduct. The incidents on which I was tormented were numerous and ranged from blatant racial discrimination in the allocation of research funds and overseas work; plagiarism of my research ideas; attack on my character with accusation of false pretences; attempts to force me into accepting blame for project financial irregularities for which another organisation was responsible; holding a ‘dummy’ disciplinary hearing the purpose being, seemingly, to ‘cover up’ previous issues constituting harassment on me; playing mischief with my mail (particularly electronic mail) and my annual leave sheet. The most important of the incidents perpetrated was a car attack incident on me; and my Debit Card details seemingly being passed on to British Society of Animal Science (BSAS) which then siphoned funds from my Bank Account in order to provoke and harass me.
2. In the absence of any legitimate grounds for dismissing me, unknown charges of alleged gross misconduct on my part were concocted for disciplinary hearings that were arranged. The ‘disciplinary action/hearing’ was an attempt to cover-up all the injustices perpetrated against me by a conspiracy of racial discrimination at the highest levels of the University. I was unfairly suspended from work on 24 April 1998; unfairly because the sole objective of my suspension was to prevent me obtaining the evidence that I would need to defend myself on the issues of alleged misconduct by interviewing relevant staff and obtaining appropriate documents. The disciplinary hearings themselves were conducted in my absence on certificated sick leave (my GP provided statements and Med 3 Certificates that were submitted to the University as proof) and my salary was also stopped unfairly to put further pressure on me and my family into abandoning my attempts to seek justice by collecting all the evidence which I was gradually beginning to accumulate. In addition to not allowing me a reasonable opportunity to defend myself against the allegations of misconduct by my appearance in person before the disciplinary hearings, a Defence Document which I had managed to prepare at home while sick and submitted to the University was not permitted to be considered by the Disciplinary Hearing Appeal Panel. Thus, in effect the University refused my suggestion in October 1998 to seek the assistance of the Arbitration Conciliation and Advisory Service to settle this dispute. Professor Fussey further wrote that there was no point in continuing correspondence with the University concerning this dispute whilst at the same time refusing ‘point-blank’ to answer the central question that I had requested the University to clarify, namely whether I had been permitted at any stage to prepare for and participate in a Scientific Symposium to which I was invited as an important guest speaker whilst I remained suspended from work. Since the Symposium organisers were monitoring my difficulties with my employer and misbehaving accordingly, I found myself with no option but to wait until this Symposium was over (on 24 June 1999) before I could be certain of all the evidence that I needed in order to present my case to the Industrial Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal and a systematic campaign of harassment and attempts to ‘blacken’ my name in order to tarnish my international reputation. But the Tribunal was not willing to accept this as a justifiable reason for the delay in my application to the Industrial Tribunal for which there is a three month time limit.
SPECIFIC SUBSTANTIVE POINTS
1. Why did the University offer to pay me, without prejudice, £20,000 and to give me a reference letter, if I had done something so wrong that it amounted to gross misconduct? I wished to be restored to my job or to have paid my full redundancy pay entitlement which amounted to over £55,000, hence this claim is brought to Medway County Court for over £50,000 for settlement.
2. What were the specific charges of gross misconduct brought against me by the University that were the subject of disciplinary hearings in my absence?
3. Why did the University not forward my Case for Statutory Sick Pay to the relevant authorities at the Department of Works and Pension from August 1998? Was it not to prevent me from going on sick leave from the University? As a result of this decision I have not been paid any statutory sick pay and Incapacity Benefit.
4. Why was no pay paid to me for the month of October 1998, when I was supposed to have been employed up to 20 October 1998?
5. I submitted to the University for approval a handwritten letter addressed to Ms Joyce Darling of the BSAS. Why was there no reply to the substantive issue of how the BSAS got hold of my Barclays Connect VISA number to effect the cash withdrawal? BSAS joined in the criminal harassment against me and hence this Case is also brought against the BSAS as a co-defendant of the University of Greenwich.
6. What action was taken by the University on my complaints of racial discrimination in the allocation of research funds?
7. July Call for Concept Notes issue. What action was taken by the University against Mr David Jackson with respect to my 27 July 1997 memorandum? An informal disciplinary meeting was held and I was reprimanded, on issues specifically relating to my alleged discourteous behaviour towards Mr David Jackson and Mr Andy Major. The charges against me were to do with calling a junior administrative staff ( Mr Major) incompetent which I denied. In my defence I stated that Mr Jackson had been blocking my progress out of jealousy. Dr Blake in his memorandum of 13 November 1997 acknowledged that 'Dr Panigrahi had one very serious concern related to the Jackson concept note issue but with far wider implications. Dr Panigrahi stated that he had raised a range of other proposals over time for eg for PhD studentships and ASSC funding which he felt should have been put forward and funded. He had often not received a response to explain why his ideas had not been taken up and was of the clear opinion that there was a process in place which was actively and specifically blocking funding proposals that he produced. The Institute and Departmental procedures for concept note production had changed and still seemed to be changing when it suited those responsible. Dr Panigrahi had no understanding of why such a widespread blocking of his proposals should be imposed by a range of colleagues, but he was convinced that this situation exists.' What further action was taken by the University to this complaint?
8. What action was taken by the University against Dr Mathewman for his accusation of 'false pretences' against me?
9. Terms of my suspension from work pending disciplinary hearing. The University's decision to deny me access to my research materials and to prevent me acting on several on-going research matters proved extremely damaging to my career and reputation as a scientist. I had worked extremely hard for over a decade to prepare the research material for my oral presentation at the 10th European Poultry Conference in Israel in June 1998 and the result of the suspension was that I could not attend the Conference. This would have been a distinctive feather in my cap in terms of international recognition for my work. The same applies to the invitation I received to speak at the 26th Poultry Symposium to be held in Peebles. My scientific paper on ‘mycoflora in stovers stored in Zimbabwe’ was highly commended by referees during first stage assessment as it broke new grounds in scientific approach and methodology and was the result of 6 years of painstaking research – the publication of the paper was therefore urgent. Similarly, my dissertation on ‘urbanisation and livestock development’ was the last item of study material required to secure my MSc with Distinction from the University of London. I was also required to write a reference for a colleague in ITDG-Zimbabwe to read for a course of study in Britain, which I was prevented from doing, thus harming my personal reputation and the career of a close colleague. I was also in the process of editing a dozen or so scientific papers from international scientists for the journal British Poultry Science, a work that was initially suspended. I was also due to attend the Annual General Meeting as a Director of the Company British Poultry Science Limited. These items of work could not have been under any circumstances considered as ‘disruption in the workplace’ that they should be suspended. Rather they could only enhance the reputation of the University of Greenwich. This has led to my conclusion that the University's denial of my fundamental right to further my scientific work was a deliberate malicious attack on my career development and reputation consistent with other activities with respect to the ‘July Calls for Concept Notes’ incident, the denial of funds for WPSA presentation, and by Dr R. Matthewman’s libelous remarks of ‘false pretences’ made to me which the University did not investigate despite requests. On the other hand, the suspension of work appears to have been engineered to enable the completion of plagiarism of my research ideas on ‘Oilseed cake as stockfeeds in Zimbabwe (Project ZX0021) in similar manner to the ways in which my original proposals on the ‘effect of storage of stovers in Zimbabwe’ was plagiarised by other staff within Dr Blake’s Natural Resource Management Department, and the full raw data from dairy and poultry feeding trials designed by me under Project O0053 was systematically withheld from me by Professor Haines’ Food Security Department. These two Heads of Department appeared to have deliberately prevented my April 1997 Oilseed proposal and A0493 research work with Dr P. Golob from progressing. The suspension from work was timed to cover up these allegations of gross misconduct against other staff and raised the question of whether it was not a deliberate attempt to (a) destroy my recently negotiated contract, after nearly one year and a half of effort, with the Livestock Production Programme for DfID, and (b) prevent me presenting my 6 years of research and development experience on sunflowerseed oilcake (C0633, O0053, ZX0021) at the Wye Livestock Meeting on 21 May 1998. Preventing me attending that Meeting was a considerable attack on my reputation.
10. I was an Assistant Editor of the journal British Poultry Science based in Edinburgh. The manuscripts that I was responsible for were being messed about by the Editorial Office and referees who were not sending back the referees' reports to me in time. Staff at the Editorial Office manipulated referees and authors not to cooperate with me from about July 1997 and especially during the summer of 1998. I wrote a letter dated 10 September 1998 to Dr Mieras, British Poultry Science Editorial Assistant critical of him, and in which I highlighted each one of my manuscript issues that the company must address and sent separate copies of the letter to Professor Sally Solomon, Dr J McNab and Dr G Perry but there was no response to the letter from anyone. The officials of the British Poultry Science were aware of my difficulties with my employer and joined in the campaign of criminal harassment to terminate my Assistant editorship for the journal. Hence this case is also brought against British Poultry Science as a co-defendant of the University of Greenwich.
CONCLUSION
1. In conclusion, my promising career at a young age was ruined and my international reputation as an agricultural scientist permanently damaged by the criminal harassment perpetrated on me by staff of the University and elsewhere, by my suspension from work (including my editorial work for the British Poultry Science journal), and by the unfair nature of disciplinary proceedings and termination of employment instituted against me by the University. It is suggested that this has been due to institutional racial discrimination at the University and beyond. The resulting damage to my career and reputation justifies financial compensation the amount of which is to be determined by the Court.
On 7 May 2006 I wrote a letter to the Medway County Court that I feel obliged to respond more fully to the 10 April 2006 letter from the Defendant's Solicitor to the Court. With respect to the Court, although the 17 April 2001 dated Order of the Court stated that the Claimant's statement of case be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for claim and as being an abuse of the process of the Court, the judgement had not taken into account that this is primarily a Defamation Case arising from the written charges of 'gross misconduct' against me by the University of Greenwich. As such it is not an abuse of the process of the Court. I apologise that this was not made clear to the Court earlier but I did not attend the original Hearing nor was I represented due to personal circumstances. Although the 17 April 2001 Order required me to pay the Defendants £755 costs by 25 April 2001, it was agreed with the Defendants solicitor that I could pay gradually instead and I agreed to interest being added on to the original costs. I paid 3 instalments totalling £150 and have sent a further £150 on 5 May 2006. It is unfortunate that the Defendants Solicitors did not at any point remind me that I was falling behind with my payments. In this regard please note that I have explained to the Court in my letter dated 30 March 2005 that I require a Court Order to be made against the Department of Social Security to compel it to pay me the statutory sick pay and Incapacity Benefit backdated to 1998 so that I can meet these and other obligations. I hope this can be considered at the Hearing as part of this Case. I should also state that instituting a Civil Restraint Order against me will lead to the unjust disposal of these proceedings. I have fought a long battle for justice in ill health and without the aid of a solicitor because my original solicitor whom I had paid £1750 let me down. I have therefore had a great deal to learn about the workings of the Justice System and this has been done by written and verbal communications to various bodies, costing me a great deal of time and effort. I need to be able to follow up my Defamation Case against the University of Greenwich and the original statement of claim in ME010463 allows this Claim to proceed as one. I do not wish to start a new case as I have already paid £550 Court Fees, but if I need to submit a fresh N1 Claim Form please let me know as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing from you in early course.
When there was no reply to this letter from the Court on 3 June 2006 I wrote a further letter. I write further to my 7 May 2006-dated letter to the Court. I had sent my skeleton argument document for this Hearing of 3 May 2006 (of which the Court should have a copy) to the Defendant's solicitor but there has been no reply to it so that many of the facts are still unclear. I have therefore revised my statement of Claim, as follows: The Claim in ME010463 is made firstly to sue for damages for defamation on account of the written statement by the University of Greenwich that I was blameworthy of such gross misconduct that I should be dismissed from service. On the other hand it was brought to the attention of the University that I was suffering from severe mental illness of a nature that my reactions to the harassment I was facing could appear to some as being peculiar. The harassment on me was perpetrated by a criminal conspiracy in the University and beyond to destroy my career and reputation and it stemmed from racial prejudice. Since other staff were being offered redundancy at about that time the disciplinary action was also the cause of the loss of my redundancy pay of over £55,000 which I am therefore claiming towards the damages. The University's offer to pay me £20,000 was turned down by me as insufficient compensation. Secondly, the University did not act as it was required to do with regard to my sick leave application which has led to a considerable loss of income for me. Instead of dismissing me from my job it should have halted the disciplinary action and placed me on medical retirement which would have been on a salary of about £10,000 per year. I am therefore requesting a Court Order to compel the University to place me on medical retirement as I am still under the same medical treatment. Further, the University did not pay me my salary or sick pay for the month of October 1998. For this reason, as also the fact that my Notice of termination of employment should have commenced on the date that the University's Disciplinary Appeal Panel finally met to consider this matter and not when the Disciplinary Panel decided to terminate my employment 3 months earlier, I am also claiming Wrongful Dismissal.
I sent the revised statement of Claim to Archon Solicitors, which replied on 7 June 2006 stating that we confirm that we did, indeed, receive your letter of 3 May 2006, which incorporated your draft skeleton argument. However, you will be aware from our letter to the Medway County Court of 10 April 2006 that we consider your application to set aside the judgment of 17 April 2001 to be frivolous and vexatious and wholly without merit, and that remains our position. In fact, when writing our letter of 10 April 2006, we omitted to mention the fact that you had already applied to have the judgment set aside, and that application was dismissed by the Court on 24 July 2001. In the circumstances, we would inform you that, at the hearing on 14 June 2006, we shall be making an application for an Order that you pay our client's costs on the indemnity basis. This means that we shall be asking the Court to order that you pay all of our client's costs incurred in relation to dealing with your application. We would therefore, strongly recommend that you seek legal advice before proceeding with your application. With regard to the points made in your skeleton argument and your letter of 3 June 2006, we would make the following points: 1. Your claim for alleged defamation by our client is hopelessly out of time. The present limitation period for bringing a defamation claim is one year from the date on which the alleged defamation occurred. Given that your complaint relates to matters that occurred in 1998, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear such a claim. Even if the relevant limitation period had not expired, any such defamation claim as you might seek to bring is wholly without merit and doomed to failure. 2. You refer in your letter to alleged 'criminal conspiracy' and race discrimination. Even if there was the slightest merit in such claims (which are completely unparticularlised), the County Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with such matters. 3. With regard to your sick leave application, again the Court has no jurisdiction to make the Order that you are seeking and, further, any such claims as you may have had are substantially out of time. In particular the time limit for bringing a wrongful dismissal claim expired in 2004, as did any claim you may have had for alleged non-payment of salary. Finally, we do not agree that payment of the outstanding costs should be suspended pending the outcome of your application. These costs have now been outstanding for some five years and, to date, we have received only £250 out of the £755 that you were ordered to pay. We would also remind you that the outstanding costs continue to attract interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
On receipt of this letter on 8 June 2006 and following a brief discussion with Rashmi explaining that we could lose the house if I allowed matters to progress further, I immediately telephoned Medway County Court and said that the matter had now been settled and I no longer wished to proceed with the above Hearing, confirming this with a faxed letter. I telephoned Archon Solicitors and sent them a copy of this Fax with the comment, 'Further to my telephone conversation with you today, please note the contents of this letter.' There were two meanings to the matter has now been settled, the second being that all the facts of the case were now out in the open in court proceedings so that there is nothing further to be gained from the Hearing or proceeding further. I did not wish to proceed further because ultimately it would boil down to a question of whether a judge would understand under what compulsion a jnana yogi worked as the nature of the mental disorder under which I had been reacting to the harassment faced in the University. When psychiatrists had found it difficult to pinpoint what was wrong with me what chance was there that a judge would understand my actions as being justified under British law? As this case showed a jnana yogi goes through the most dangerous manoevres in life in order to seek knowledge. And the knowledge I acquired showed that there is Almighty God in Sri Krishna and the purpose of living was to fight evil at every turn. Then He would come and assist that fight by helping one merge with the Divine Truth through adviata: Satyamev Jayate. Long live the Truth.
Nothing arrived in the post in the next two days and I wrote to Archon a further letter entitled: DEFAMATION AND WRONGFUL DISMISSAL: COSTS. I have still not received a written letter of apology from the University of Greenwich for its unjustified defamatory statement on me that I was blameworthy of gross misconduct. Further, please take note that this statement was given to me in a letter dated 15 July 1998 and my legal proceedings against the University commenced at the Employment Tribunal Service, Ashford, on 3 July 1999, that is within the 1 year time limit for Defamation Cases if we go by your stated time limit applicable for such proceedings. Similarly, the Case for Wrongful Dismissal was brought within the time limit of 2004. In this regard I cannot agree to being penalised in legal arguments and financially for the delays that were caused to my proceedings by tribunal and court staff at the Employment Tribunal Service, Employment Appeals Tribunal, The Royal Courts of Justice in Strand (London), Medway County Court, Lewes Appeal Centre, Hull County Court, Northampton County Court, Central London Civil Justice Centre, North Kent Magistrates Court, and the Old Bailey (London). It is also patently clear that Medway County Court rejected your letter of application dated 10 April 2006 and allowed my Application Notice dated 22 May 2005 to proceed further, proving that it saw merit in my Case. Further, my records indicate that I had paid you £300 (not £250 as stated in your letter of 7 June 2006) and a further cheque for £50 was sent to you on 8 June 2006. I require these payments to be refunded to me on the grounds that Medway County Court clearly saw merit in my Case. I also need you to pay me the totality of my legal costs in relation to these proceedings, and since I have been working on this case non-stop for 8 years, at the rate of my salary at that time of £30,000 pa, this amounts to £240,000.
Archon Solicitors wrote back on 13 June 2006 referring to the letters of 8 and 10 June 2006. With regard to the first letter, we note that you have written to the Court withdrawing your claim on the basis "that the matter has now been settled". We are somewhat puzzled by your assertion that the matter has been settled, since no offer of settlement has been (or, indeed, will be) made by our client. We had assumed that you were simply withdrawing your claim, and we should be grateful if you would confirm your position. As to your letter of 10 June 2006 our client has no intention of issuing you with an apology in relation to the termination of your employment on the grounds of gross misconduct, as it considers that such decision was fully justified. As far as your alleged defamation claim is concerned, the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear defamation claims and, had you wanted to bring such a claim, you would have had to bring it in the High Court within one year of the alleged defamation occurring. We reiterate that any such claim is now statute barred. Similarly, your alleged claim for wrongful dismissal would have had to have been brought in the Employment Tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination of your employment, or in the High Court or County Court within six years of the termination of your employment. As far as the Employment Tribunal is concerned, you will be aware that your claims were struck out. Your assertion that the Medway County Court allowed your application of 22 May 2005 to proceed and/or it "saw merit" in your claim is simply wrong. The hearing fixed for 14 June 2006 was intended to determine whether or not the judgment striking out your original claim in 2001 should be set aside. As you have withdrawn that application, the Court will not now determine whether or not there was any merit in it. You will, of course, be aware that we considered such application to be hopeless in any event. We confirm that we have now received a total of £350 from you in relation to the outstanding costs, and that we expect the balance to be paid. There is absolutely no question of our client refunding those costs, let alone paying any costs that you may have incurred. We put you on notice that, should you seek to resurrect your application to have the judgment set aside, we will apply to the Court to have the application dismissed and for an Order that you pay our client's costs on the indemnity basis. As we indicated to you in our previous letter, we would strongly recommend that you seek professional legal advice before pursuing this matter any further.
I wrote back the same day not commenting on the specific issue of whether or not I had withdrawn my application or had merely stated that I no longer wished the matter to be dealt with in a Hearing: with reference to your letter dated 13 June 2006, thank you for your suggestion that I should seek professional legal advice. Unfortunately, I cannot do that because I am penniless. I am also unable to pay you any further sums of money. I had therefore put the onus back on the University to pursue the matter by taking out an Application to dismiss my Application Notice if it considered the matter still outstanding or to take enforcement proceedings to recover the remainder of the costs relating to the 17 April 2001-dated Court Order. This would determine whether the matter was settled or if it would proceed further in which case the conduct of the proceedings at Medway County Court would have to be analysed. In particular what did the Court mean by 'the Court takes the view that the overriding objective would be best met by the current application being considered at a hearing'. Was it not to get me within its sights for referral to a different Court? I had succeeded in indentifying the two reasons (Defamation and Wrongful Dismissal) why my Case was not an abuse of the process of court but the Court could easily for some other reason raised at the Hearing reconfirm its earlier verdict and then punish me for repeating the abuse of the process of the court. I had been worried about these issues and my position as I drafted my letters to Archon and the Court and jumped at the opportunity to cancel the Hearing on the basis that the 7 June 2006 letter from Archon was adequate for me to settle on since all the facts were now in the open. I had achieved a kind of closure on the matter.
It was now clear to me that I had run into problems with my new employer, the University of Greenwich because it could not cope with my questioning attitude and harassed me because of it. Colleagues had ganged up against me and instead of meekly surrendering I found myself responding with further probes which the University did not like and so it put me through a disciplinary action. My tribunal and court proceedings also showed that there were limits to how the concept of justice according to natural law applied in the United Kingdom in civil proceedings. Pursuing a course of natural justice was futile as in my case it resulted in my Case being turned down at the Employment Tribunal and with me being initially judged to have abused the process of the Court at Medway County Court. My efforts to have this judgment reversed did not make much progress although I did manage to have all the relevant facts out in the open before pulling out of a Hearing because the signs for an outcome in my favour were not promising. Firstly, I had been unable to get a reply from the Court to my written queries particularly on my submission on co-defendants; secondly, I did not have knowledge of common law provisions to put counter arguments against the University's well paid solicitor and barrister at any Hearing; and thirdly, I had no money left to fight on further. By withdrawing from the Hearing stating that the matter had been settled I had prevented another judgment as I did not wish to risk receiving another Court Order against me at this Hearing that could have been made on a technicality such as not meeting the appropriate time limits for bringing my Case to the County Court (in the same way as I had missed the time limits for the Employment Tribunal) and whether the case should have been lodged directly at the High Court instead of the County Court (or whether it was for the County Court to direct issues from this case to High Court and even the Magistrates Court). It was also clear that there might not be a specific law in the United Kingdom against criminal harassment by employers to be used by employees to bring their employer to justice for compensation, which is what I was seeking in addition to my claims for Defamation and Wrongful Dismissal. I could not take the chance of having my reputation further damaged by a Civil Restraint Order being made against me for continuing to pursue the University of Greenwich. So my quest for common law justice had to end there.
This experience shows that the three month time limits for cases to be brought before the Industrial Tribunal for Unfair Dismissal and Race Discrimination were too low, and this was also the case for Defamation cases (1 year) as there may be other more pressing related cases that one was engaged in. Why did a nation have such unrealistic time limits within which civil cases need to be brought to tribunals and court? Why did the County Court not have the jurisdiction to make the orders that I sought against the Department of Works and Pensions and against the University of Greenwich on my medical retirement? Why did the County Court not have jurisdiction to deal with criminal conspiracy and race discrimination? It was clear to me that natural justice was severely limited by the common law justice of the UK, which was built around the need to protect employers and to minimise the work load of courts in order to promote a high level of economic efficiency for the world domination that the nation sought.
I was tempted to write the following letter to Archon, but thought better of it in the end as Archon could have used any excuse to pursue the costs issue against me: I have not received the response of the University of Greenwich to my 14 June 2006 dated letter and since this is about the time of the month that you might be expecting money from me I am writing to confirm that I am unable to pay you any further sums of money. I also note that you objected to my stating to Medway County Court that 'the matter has now been settled'. This is a statement that I arrived at on the basis of the fact that I had finally managed to write to the court explaining every detail that needed to be explained about my conduct so that the truth had surfaced in judicial proceedings for the publication of this matter, and equally, you had demonstrated from your letter of 7 June 2006 that you wish your client to avoid the central allegation of criminal harassment and hide behind timelimits for the issues of Wrongful Dismissal (which remains undefended) and Defamation (let me point out to you on this that when a copy of the 15 July 1998 letter is kept on a University of Greenwich file or files as I have reason to believe, the defamation is deemed to being perpetrated on each day that the letter remains on file which is available for consultation purposes - the Defamation case may therefore be activated at any time unless the letter is removed from file or a corrective letter is entered which I urge your client to do). From your responses you have also shown that your client has no reputation worth protecting and is primarily interested in making and saving money as it had also hidden behind the three-month time limit at the Industrial Tribunal whereas for me protecting my reputation and seeking the truth is more important than money. This is why I delayed my case to the Ashford Employment Tribunal to assess the World Poultry Science Association-UK Branch's role in the harassment and to teach it a lesson. Knowledge of the true underlying situation is a sufficient reward for me to now state that the matter has been settled.
There had been some doubt in my mind as to whether Satyamev Jayate meant in my case that at the end of this battle I would win a substantial sum of money from the University and even get back my old job at the Natural Resources Institute. Of course, neither had happened, but Rashmi, Rupa and I were still together living in the same house and we were still eating and living well. And I had finally identified that the University had been guilty of Wrongful Dismissal and Defamation on the grounds of my mental condition, namely gyan yoga, which justified my responses (such as the BSAS letter) to the harassment that I had faced at the University. The University did not pursue the matter against me and so truth had survived. Satyamev Jayate may therefore be simply an expression to state that the pursuit of truth was an end in itself, and brought one closer to God.