The Respondent's Evidence
68Mr Kevin John Schipp has been Manager, Staff Efficiency and Conduct Unit, with the Respondent since March 2005 having commenced in that Unit in 2002 and as a classroom teacher in 1975.
69Mr Schipp said he has been aware of concerns Principal Duncombe had with Mr Sud's performance since around April 2008 when the former sought assistance in relation to a TIP for the latter.
70Mr Schipp confirmed that he was aware of the decision of Macdonald C, and the outcome of the subsequent appeal by the Respondent. He confirmed that he had written to Mr Sud advising of the requirement to participate in a TIP upon resumption following his reinstatement.
71Mr Schipp stated that he did not become aware of Mr Sud's concerns, as contained in the handwritten note dated 2 February 2011, until he read Mr Sud's statement prepared in these proceedings.
72Mr Schipp stated that he had been aware of the concerns about Mr Sud's conduct and the fact that those concerns had been referred to EPAC for investigation. He had also been aware of the allegation that Mr Sud had not complied with directions regarding the TIP and the direction by Ms Thorpe that he perform alternative duties pending the outcome of the investigations.
73Mr Schipp recalled a telephone conversation he had with Ms Cran on 17 February 2011 when she called to discuss Mr Sud's application for LWOP:
Cran: Mr Sud has sought approval to take a period of leave without pay rather than attend alternative duties. I would like your input from an EPAC perspective before I make a decision.
Schipp: That would be acceptable as long as he is aware that his mater will be progressed and we will need to get in contact him during the process. We need an address and a telephone number for him.
He said he subsequently received an email from Ms Cran providing Mr Sud's post office box address and his wife's mobile telephone number. He said he spoke to Ms Cran and asked that she attempt to obtain a residential address for him.
74Mr Schipp stated that he was aware of Mr Sud's contention, made during meetings with Principal Duncombe, that the Department was not following the rules. However, he was not aware of any clarification provided by Mr Sud or any particular allegations made against the principal either then or now by either Mr Sud or his barrister.
75He confirmed that he, as Manager, Staff Efficiency and Conduct Team, signed the letter of allegations addressed to Mr Sud at his post office box address on 23 February 2011. He recalled that no response was received from the Applicant.
76Mr Schipp asked Mr Paul Conroy, the Employee Performance Officer, to contact Mr Sud's on his wife's mobile telephone number to chase up a response. He received the following email response from Mr Conroy: on 17 March 2011:
I spoke to Mrs Sud:
She confirmed PO address was correct.
I advised her that a letter from you to Mr Sud was issued to the PO Box address on 23 February 2011
That no response had been received from Mr Sud and
that the matter would be progressed.
She said she would inform Mr Sud
I then asked if she would provide their residential address ... she advised that they didn't like to give the address out
I advised:
this was a serious matter and the Dept were keen to ensure Mr Sud received correspondence
it is a requirement that all DET personnel provide a residential address
Mrs Sud again agreed to inform Mr Sud.
77The investigation report into the allegations of misconduct by Mr Sud was completed and referred to the decision maker, Mr Peter Riordan, the Deputy Director-General, Workforce Management and Systems Improvement. Mr Riordan sought from him, on or about 25 May 2011,any further information he was required to take into account in arriving at his decision in the matter. He provided that additional information on 8 June 2011.
78Mr Riordan formed the opinion that Mr Sud had engaged in misconduct and informed him accordingly in correspondence dated 15 June 2011. Attached to that letter was a copy of the investigation report and annexures. Mr Sud was provided with an opportunity to make submissions in relation to the proposed disciplinary action.
Mr Schipp arranged for Mr Conroy to forward the letter and enclosures to Mr Sud by express post. No response was received from Mr Sud.
79On or about 7 July 2011, Mr Schipp became aware of Mr Riordan's decision to terminate Mr Sud's employment. Mr Riordan signed correspondence to that effect on the same date.
80On 8 July 2011, Mr Schipp said he telephoned Mrs Aish Sud on the mobile telephone number provided by her husband. He kept a contemporaneous note of that conversation. Mr Karen Wee, Administrative Officer, was present during that telephone conversation and made a note of it on ASIS. He recalled the conversation as follows:
Schipp: Hi is that Mrs Sud?
Female: Yes.
Schipp: Are you married to Mr Jitendra Sud?
Female: Yes.
Schipp: My name is Kevin Schipp I am the Relieving Director of the Employee Performance and Conduct Directorate with the Department of Education. We are sending some correspondence to Mr Sud and I just want to confirm the address. The address we have is PO Box 222 Rockdale NSW 2216, is that correct?
Mrs Sud: Yes.
Schipp: Does Mr Sud receive mail at that address?
Mrs Sud: Yes
Schipp: So if I send some correspondence to Mr Sud at that address he would get it?
Mrs Sud: Yes.
Schipp: We have sent some correspondence out to Mr Sud at that address and he should expect that to be delivered in the next couple of days.
Mrs Sud: OK
81Mr Schipp provided an itemised bill for the telephone number he was using to prove that such a call was made on that date to Aish Sud's mobile number at 11.43 am.
82Mr Schipp was aware that the letter was returned with the notation "Not on this address". Mr Schipp directed, in accordance with s 93Q of Part 4A of the Teaching Services Act, that copies of the dismissal letter be sent to various addresses that had been used by Mr Sud over the last couple of years.
83Mr Paul Bernard Conroy, Employee Performance Officer, Staff Efficiency and Conduct Team, provided a statement in the proceedings in which he advised that he had been allocated Mr Sud's file in or around November 2010. Mr Sud had been identified as experiencing difficulties with his teaching and Mr Conroy was assigned to provide support and advice to Principal Duncombe in implementing a TIP for Mr Sud.
84He stated that Mr Duncombe called him on more than one occasion to advise that Mr Sud was not participating in the process.
85Mr Conroy stated that on 23 February 2011, he arranged for a letter of allegations to be mailed to Mr Sud addressed to his post office box address. That letter, to his knowledge, was not returned to the Department. Nevertheless, no response was received from Mr Sud.
86On 17 March 2011, Mr Conroy received an email from Ms Cran regarding her futile attempts to contact Mr Sud. The email, which was annexed to his statement, stated as follows:
... When I met with Mr Sud 17/2 he assured me that I would be able to contact him through his wife's phone number ....
I have made the following contacts/requests
24/2 Spoke to Aish and asked Jitendra to call me at the office - gave the number
1/3 Spoke to Aish and asked Jitendra to call me at the office. Aish told me that Jitendra was not living in Sydney. I asked if he was in Australia and she answered yes
2/3 Left a message asking jitendra to call me at the office
7/3 Left a message asking Jitendra to me at the office within the next 24 hours
8/3 Spoke to Aish and told her that I was very disappointed. I said that Jitendra had given me his word. I explained that I had supported his request to take leave on the basis that I could contact him but that he has let me down. I commented that this was the 5th time I had called. I asked that he please call me.
17/3 I called and the phone was answered by someone who sounded like Aish. When I introduced myself she hung up.
87Mr Conroy stated that he contacted Mrs Sud on the same mobile number also on 17 March 2011. They had the following conversation:
Conroy: Hello Mrs Sud my name is Paul Conroy from the Department of Education and Training
Mrs Sud: I am sorry Sue Cran tried to call me but we got cut off.
Conroy: Can I ask that you confirm the PO Box address that we have for Mr Sud?
Mrs Sud: It is PO Box .... Rockdale [number confirmed].
Conroy: And the postcode?
Mrs Sud: It is 2216.
Conroy: A letter was issued to Mr Sud at that address on 23 February 2011 from Mr Kevin Schipp and Mr Sud had not responded. Could you please advise Mr Sud that the matter will be progressed.
Mrs Sud: I will tell him.
Conroy: Are you able to provide a residential address?
Mrs Sud: The PO Box is the address.
Conroy: I meant an address where you live like in a house.
Mrs Sud: We don't like to give that out.
Conroy: We need it for future correspondence as it is a serious matter and the Department are keen to ensure that correspondence is received by Mr Sud. It is also a requirement that Departmental personnel provide a residential address.
Mrs Sud: I will let Mr Sud know.
88Mr Conroy stated that he had kept a contemporaneous note of that conversation, a copy of which he attached to his statement. Mr Conroy provided an itemised bill for the telephone number he was using to prove that such a call was made on that date to Aish Sud's mobile number at 2.18 pm. He had relayed the above conversation to Mr Schipp and Ms Cran in separate emails on the same day
89Mr Conroy sent a letter from Mr Riordan, together with the investigation report, to Mr Sud via express post envelope to the post office box address. Proof of express post delivery was annexed to the Statement. Proof was also provided of the returned envelope marked with the notation "NOT ON THIS ADDRESS".
90Mr Conroy tracked the delivery of the letter with the Australia Post Inquiry Line. He was advised, on 18 July 2011, that the letter was delivered to the Rockdale post office box address on 11 July 2011; the person who had access to that post office box would have made the notation and returned it; and it was returned to Waterloo Post Office on 13 July 2011.
91As a result, an electoral roll search was conducted which revealed that no one with that name was listed. The only Suds on the Roll were a "Julius Mohan Sud" and a "Freddy Mohan Sud" - both listed as the same address at Carlton NSW. It was noted that the Applicant had used the same address in the past.
92Mr Conroy did as directed and sent copies of the dismissal letter in both marked and unmarked enveloped to a number of different addresses, including the Carlton address. The envelope forwarded to the Carlton address was returned with the same handwritten notation "NOT ON THIS ADDRESS". A copy of the front of that envelope containing the notation was annexed to his statement.
The copies that were forwarded in unmarked envelopes to the Loftus and Rockdale addresses were not returned to the Department.
The envelope sent by registered mail to the post office box address at Rockdale was returned to the Department. A card had been issued by Australia Post but the envelope had not been collected.
93The Respondent transferred his termination pay, amounting to a sum of $7,038.83, into the Applicant's bank account on 22 July 2011.
94On or about 5 August 2011, he was aware that another letter was sent by Mr Schipp to Mr Sud's post office box address at Rockdale. That letter was also returned with the identical notation "NOT ON THIS ADDRESS".
95Ms Thorpe, Director, Employee Performance and Conduct Directorate, on 22 August 2011, forwarded correspondence in a marked envelope to the post office box address of the Applicant advising that his name had been place on the Not To Be Employed List. That envelope was subsequently returned with the identical notation "NOT ON THIS ADDRESS".
96Mr Wayne Reginald Duncombe, Principal of Randwick Boys' High School, provided a statement in the proceedings in which he advised that he had identified Mr Sud as experiencing teaching difficulties back in 2008. When Mr Sud resumed duties on 5 November 2010 following his reinstatement, Mr Duncombe resumed his attempts to deal with those difficulties.
97Mr Duncombe stated that he was painfully aware of the previous IRC proceedings involving Mr Sud and therefore had taken pains to ensure, by close liaison with the Staff Efficiency and Conduct Directorate, that the process he followed was fair and was consistent with the Department's policies and procedures.
98He confirmed that he provided Mr Sud with the 5 November 2010 letter from Mr Schipp relating to the conditions upon which he was returning to work.
99On 8 November 2010, Mr Duncombe provided with Mr Sud with a letter confirming a meeting to be held on 10 November 2010 to discuss his teaching difficulties and to commence implementing a TIP. Mr Sud went home sick at 11 am on that day.
100At the meeting on 10 November, 2010 (during which Minutes were kept), Mr Sud was provided with all the relevant documentation relating to the TIP and was given a couple of days to digest that information.
101On 11 November, 2010, he provided Mr Sud with a letter advising that a further meeting had been scheduled for 12 November for prepare for the implementation of the TIP. Mr Sud absented himself from work on 12 November 2010. No medical certificate was provided in relation to that absence.
102The meeting was rescheduled, by letter dated 15 November 2010, to 18 November 2010. Mr Sud absented himself from work on 16 and 18 November 2010. No medical certificates were provided in relation to those absences.
103The meeting was rescheduled once again, by letter dated 19 November 2010, to 22 November 2010. Details of the meeting are set out above.
104Mr Duncombe, by letter dated 25 November 2010, advised Mr Sud that the TIP had been finalised and was ready to commence. He also advised of the schedule of observations to commence on 30 November 2010.
105As a result of the contents of a handwritten document provided to him by Mr Thornton, and confirmed by Mr Sud as his comments, Mr Duncombe prepared a letter dated 26 November 2010 directing Mr Sud to participate fully in the TIP. Upon handing that letter over, Mr Sud said to him "I have consulted my lawyer and this letter is different because it is a legal direction, I will need at least 10 days to respond". Mr Duncombe stated that he had replied by reminding Mr Sud that the TIP had commenced.
Mr Duncombe stated that he had never been contacted by anyone purporting to be Mr Sud's legal representative.
106Mr Sud absented himself from work on 29 and 30 November 2010. No medical certificates were provided in relation to those absences.
107At the request of Mr Duncombe made on 1 December 2010, Mr Sud met with him that morning at which time Mr Duncombe handed him a letter dated the same day setting out the schedule of observations to be conducted during week commencing 6 December 2010.
108Mr Duncombe, accompanied by Mr Thonton, proceeded to observe Mr Sud's lesson during period 3 on 1 December 2010. Mr Duncombe annexed contemporaneous notes he kept of that conversation to his statement. He recalled the following conversation with Mr Sud:
Duncombe: Good morning, I am here to observe your lesson.
Sud: No.
Duncombe: I am here to observe your lesson. Are you going to participate?
Sud: No. You must follow the rules.
Duncombe: Do I take it you are not going to participate?
Sud: No. You must follow the rules.
Duncombe: Are you going to participate?
Sud: You must follow the rules.
Duncombe: I take it from that, that you are not going to participate.
Sud: Must follow rules.
Duncombe: I will take that as a statement that you are not going to participate.
109Mr Sud went home sick after lunch on 1 December 2010 and remained absent until 17 December 2010 which was the end of the school year. He did not provide a medical certificate for that absence.
110On 28 January 2011, Mr Duncombe said he met with Mr Sud and provided him with two documents dated the same day - firstly, a letter directing him to participate in the TIP and, in particular allowing observations of his lessons; and, secondly, a letter setting out a summary of concerns regarding conduct issues which had been brought to his attention.
111Mr Sud was absent from work on 1 February 2011. On resumption on 2 February 2011, Mr Duncombe said he handed him three letters which are described above. Mr Duncombe denied receiving or having any knowledge of Mr Sud's handwritten note of 2 February prior to reading it as part of the annexures to his statement in these proceedings.
112On or about 2 February 2011, Ms Loizou, Head Teacher Mathematics, provided him with a letter handed to her by Mr Sud. That letter was a copy of the letter provided to him by Mr Duncombe on 1 February 2011 setting out the observations to commence in week beginning 7 February 2011. Mr Duncombe annexed that document to his statement. It is noted that Mr Sud had hand written on top of the typed letter the following:
Copy to H.T. ()Maths)
Principal need to follow rules.
Avoid force entry to class
(Signed)
(J. Sud)
02/02/1
113Mr Duncombe confirmed that he held a meeting with Mr Sud on 2 February 2012 but denied receiving any correspondence at the conclusion of that meeting pointing out that he had a numbering system he followed in relation to correspondence and he had no record of that letter.
114Mr Duncombe said he went to Mr Sud's classroom in period 5 on 8 February 2011 to observe in accordance with the TIP and held the following conversation with Mr Sud:
Duncombe: Mr Sud will you be participating in this lesson observation?
Sud: No
Duncombe: Will you be participating in future lesson observations?
Sud: No.
Duncombe: Will you be participating in the review meeting on Thursday?
Sud: No. I will participate in the meeting if I am advised of it in writing but lessons, no.
115Mr Sud was absent from work on 9 February 2011. Mr Sud did not attend the weekly review meeting scheduled for 10 February 2011.
116Mr Duncombe stated that he was accompanied by Ms Loizou to the lesson observation on 11 February 2011. He reported the following conversation with Mr Sud outside the classroom:
Duncombe: Mr Sud, will you be participating in the lesson observation?
Sud: Because you are not following the rules, I will not participate.
Duncombe: Will you be participating in future lesson observations?
Sud: We'll see.
117Later in the day, Ms Cran attended at the School and held a meeting with Messrs Duncombe and Sud. Mr Duncombe observed Ms Cran hand over to Mr Sud a letter directing him to participate in the TIP.
118Mr Sud left the school at approximately 1.30 pm on 11 February claiming that he was sick. He was absent on 14 - 16 February 2011 inclusive.
119When Mr Sud attended for work on 17 February 2011, Mr Duncombe said he handed him a letter dated 14 February from Ms Thorpe relating to alternative duties.
120Mr Duncombe confirmed that when Mr Sud attended the school on 28 January 2012, he reported to him and had the following conversation:
Sud: I am returning to duty.
Duncombe: Jitendra, it is my understanding that your employment has been terminated.
Sud: No I have been on leave without pay.
121Mr Sud showed him the letter from Ms Canales approving his LWOP. Mr Duncombe stated that he contacted the Staff Efficiency and Conduct team to obtain details of the dismissal which he wrote on the document provided to him by Mr Sud and then returned the document to Mr Sud before instructing him to leave the premises.
122Mr Duncombe gave evidence that he had observed Mr Sud using a mobile telephone at Randwick Boys' High School.
123During cross-examination, Mr Duncombe agreed that the TIP is made up of both informal and formal processes. He said that he had received advice from Mr Schipp to proceed directly to the formal processes of the TIP because the Department had already attempted to engage Mr Sud with informal support towards the end of 2008 and he had rejected it - he refused to attend meetings and took 42 days single day absences from school sequentially but rang in every day for each of the 42 days thereby creating logistical problems in terms of being able to provide casual support for his classes. For that reason, Mr Duncombe had not undertaken any of the types of informal support available under that Program.
124He denied that Mr Sud was being set up for dismissal by going directly to the formal process under TIP.
A. I think that is incorrect and the reason for that is that the purpose of a Teacher Improvement Program is to support a teacher to reach a satisfactory level of teaching. The aim of the Teacher Improvement Program is not of itself termination, that may be a consequence of it but it's not the aim of the Teacher Improvement Program. I had identified concerns with Mr Sud's teaching, it was my aim, through the Teacher Improvement Program, to provide a formal mechanism of support to see if Mr Sud could reach a satisfactory level of teaching.
125Mr Duncombe was emphatic that he did not know what Mr Sud was talking about when he referred to him not following the rules. He said he asked Mr Sud, on more than one occasion, to explain what he meant because he was happy to engage him in a discussion of what the rules were but Mr Sud refused to elaborate.
126Mr Samuel John Cox provided a statement in the proceedings in which he advised that he is a classroom teacher at Randwick Boys' High School. During cross-examination, Mr Cox confirmed that he had joined the Mathematics Department at Randwick Boys' High School at the beginning of 2010, after Mr Sud was terminated in November 2009. At the time Mr Sud was reinstated, he was a permanent full-time employee in that Department and there was an excess maths teacher position at the school.
127He said that, on the afternoon of 5 November 2010, he was sitting at his desk in the mathematics room when he overheard a conversation between Mr Sud and Ms Loizou. Mr Cox provided a description of the lay out of the staff room and explained that Ms Saxena was also present in the staff room during the conversation which appeared to be quite pleasant. He said he overheard Mr Sud comment on the role of a teacher and also made comments about Principal Duncombe. He said he noted that Mr Sud's voice became raised when he referred to the Principal.
128Mr Cox said that when Mr Sud left the room, Ms Loizou suggested that they prepare a statement about what they had overheard. Together they prepared some notes about what said and Ms Loizou typed them up. Later in the day, he had checked the typed notes and was satisfied they were an accurate reflection of the conversation.
129It was a few weeks' later (on 25 November 2010) that Ms Loizou approached him and asked him to sign the typed notes which he did. He explained that Ms Loizou was not available to give evidence herself as he was on extended leave caring for her husband who was unwell.
130During cross-examination, Mr Cox said he was working at his desk but was able to hear what was being said and, at one point, Ms Loizou had asked him a question about a projector - one of the things they were discussing.
131He had been provided with a copy of the statement but not asked to sign it at that time. He did not resile from the contents of the statement. He said he signed it when he was asked to do so but denied that it was to impress Ms Loizou.
132The statement contained the following relevant matters:
I know nobody can kick me out from here. If they do I will be back again and again.
I don't know how long I will be back or how long I will be here. I will be sick 80% of the time or more. The days I am here, I don't know how long I will be here. I don't know. I have another business and I will be attending to it. I make over half a million dollars in my other business.
Do you know how much my house is worth? I live in a 3 million dollar house and I drive a car worth over $100,000. I can't get that on a teacher's pay. that only gives me $45,000 - $50,000 after tax. So you see I don't even need the money from teaching.
You saw the top barristers I had in the court. They cost more than the two years back pay. They charge a lot.
I have come with a different way of thinking. They want to play nasty. I have been treated very badly. I am only here to get on those people's back. Spent more than 2 years of pay on courts.
133Mr Cox said that, in response to a comment from Ms Loizou pointing out her concern that the students will be affected by his actions, Mr Sud had continued:
Kids? Who cares about students? I don't care about students. The principal does not care about the teachers so why should the teachers care about the students? It's like water: it runs from the top down, it doesn't go up.....
they cannot put me on a program. I am telling you: be prepared for all these stupid things. They cannot put me on program.
134Mr Cox said that, at one stage, Mr Sud angrily referred to the principal as "the bastard treated me badly",
135Ms Susan Caroline Cran provided a statement in the proceedings in which she advised that she is employed by the Respondent as the School Education Director, Woronora River Network.
136She was emphatic that Mr Sud had not, at any time, complained to her about Mr Duncombe's alleged behaviour towards him since his reinstatement.
137Ms Cran pointed out that Mr Sud had previously been on alternative duties at the Bondi Regional Office whilst allegations of misconduct were being investigated. As she had experienced difficulties with his attendance on that occasion, she took pains to ensure that, on this occasion, he understood exactly what was required of him. To that end, she had handed him, on the morning of 17 February 2011, a document titled "Protocols for Alternative Duties" and confirmed that it contained the protocols he was required to observe while on alternative duties at Bondi. He replied that he had no questions regarding that document when she inquired of him.
During cross-examination, Ms Cran stated that it was intended that either she, or a member of her staff, would check on Mr Sud's whereabouts during the day to ensure compliance with the protocols which included when he would take his breaks. During re-examination, Ms Cran pointed out that the protocols were intended to have general application to all officers reporting for alternate duties at the Bondi regional office.
138Ms Cran said that she took him to his workstation downstairs and returned to her office. A short time later, Ms Louise Ferguson, Regional Director, School Education Director, Sydney Port Jackson came to her office and said to her that Mr Sud had asked for a period of leave of absence without pay pending resolution of the allegations against him.
139Ms Cran said she called Mr Schipp to obtain advice from him. She could not recall making that telephone call in the presence of Mr Sud. Mr Schipp had no problem with it providing Mr Sud provided contact details in the form a telephone number and contact address as the matter was going to be progressed in his absence.
140She had a pleasant and reasonable 10-15 minutes conversation with Mr Sud during which she relayed what was required of him. The following conversation took place:
Cran: EPAC have agreed to allow you to take leave so long as we have a residential address and a telephone number so we can contact you. We will need to contact you because things will still be happening in this matter.
Sud: I don't want to give my residential address.
Cran: In your form you have indicated that you want leave without pay until your matter is resolved, this is why we need your contact details. EPAC need to be able to contact you.
Sud: You can use the PO box address.
Cran: How do we know we can get through to you with that?
Sud: My wife empties it every day.
Cran: We will need a contact number as well.
Sud: I don't have a mobile phone.
Cran: I can't let you take leave unless I have a way of getting in contact with you.
Sud: I can give you my wife Aish's mobile number and I assure you that if you call that number I will call you back....
141Ms Cran was emphatic that Mr Sud had not mentioned "travel" when he requested LWOP.
142During cross-examination, Ms Cran insisted that she had not made any telephone calls in his presence and the request for a contact number was not an afterthought. She said that he had given her Mrs Sud's mobile number but she had not yet written it on the form.
Cran: I don't recollect whether the conversation asking Mr Sud for a phone contact was prior to me photocopying or where it was in that conversation, but the conversation I had with Mr Sud about the phone was crucial to the leave and was done prior to approving the leave, not after it....
.....
A. No, I asked him for a phone number because I said that EPAC had to be able to contact him. I said we had to be able to contact him, when I spoke to Kevin Schipp, prior to talking to Mr Sud, he insisted that I would need a residential address and a phone number. I was asking Mr Sud for a phone number.
Boyce: You didn't see the need to put any of these requirements on the form approving his leave without pay?
A. No I didn't because the conversation was amicable, I did not realise that, I suppose, that particular conversation would come under this much scrutiny. I assumed it was understood because I was very explicit that we needed a phone number and we needed a residential address. No I didn't write it all on the form, if I had my time again I would have.
143Ms Cran insisted that she had not inserted an end date on Mr Sud's LWOP application nor had she, at any time during her conversation with him, approved a period of 12 months' LWOP. She attached a copy of the form on which she had indicated Aish's mobile telephone number and noted that EPAC had approved the leave.
144Ms Cran insisted that had Mr Sud informed her that he was going to be out of Sydney during that leave, that advice would have gone against the granting of the application as she was aware that the matter was to be progressed in his absence, hence the requirement for him to provide a contact telephone number and address. She annexed to her statement a copy of an email she had forwarded to Mr Schipp at 11.56 am confirming the contents of her statement.
145Ms Cran stated that, as School Education Director, she would have been made aware if any concerns were raised in relation to the Principal of Randwick Boys' High School and she had not.
146Ms Cran could not recall having any discussion with Mr Sud on 18 February 2011. She had also checked her telephone bill and cannot find any trace of a call to Aish Sud's mobile on that day.
147On Mr Schipp's insistence, she had called Mrs Sud on 24 February 2011 and asked for the Applicant to call her. She needed to talk to him about a query he had regarding his pay and use that opportunity to ask for a residential address. Mrs Sud agreed to give her husband the message to call Ms Cran. Again there was a paper trail confirming that statement. Ms Cran had emailed Mr Reid (c.c. Mr Schipp) on the same date to confirm the above.
148As Mr Sud had not responded to the 24 February message, Ms Cran said she called Aish Sud again on 1 March 2011, identified herself and asked her to get Mr Sud to call her. She said Mrs Sud advised that her husband was not living in Sydney at the moment but confirmed that he was in Australia. Mr Sud did not return that call either.
149Ms Cran said she left a message on Mrs Sud's mobile telephone on 2 March 2011 asking for Mr Sud to call her. Once again, Mr Sud did not return that call.
150Ms Cran said she made two further attempts at contacting Mr Sud on 7 march 2011 - 3.01 pm when the phone was not answered and again at 3.02 pm when she left a voice message.
151Ms Cran called Aish Sud again on 8 March 2011 at approximately 1.46 pm at which time she voiced her frustration at not being able to speak to Mr Sud "I am very disappointed that Jitendra has not returned my call. He gave me his word. I feel as though he has lied to me - I gave him what he wanted - but he has let me down. this is the 5th time that I have called. Please ask him to call me." Mr Sud did not return that call.
152 Ms Cran called again at approximately 1.50 pm on 17 March 2011 but the phone was disconnected after she identified herself. Ms Cran annexed her phone records for all calls made for the periods 16 February 2011 - 9 March 2011 and 17 March 2011 - 5 April 2011.
153Ms Cran forwarded an email to Mr Conroy on 17 March 2011 setting out details of the number of failed attempts she had made to contact Mr Sud [paragraph 77 above].