The Supreme Court has rejected a call to order the reinstatement of a former police trainee who was unfairly dismissed during his probation period.

Marcus Uddin was sacked in 2021 when he was still on probation as a police constable and while he was taking part in an informal management plan to improve his performance.

Chief Justice Narinder Hargun ruled in March this year that Mr Uddin was unlawfully dismissed and a hearing took place in October to hear a civil claim against the Commissioner of Police for reinstatement and compensation.

In a ruling handed down this week, Mr Justice Hargun said it would be inappropriate to order Mr Uddin to be reinstated.

“To do so would not only usurp the proper powers of the Commissioner of Police but also risks creating an environment where there is an undercurrent of ill feeling which would affect his future relations with his superiors in the BPS,” he said in the written judgment.

The judge also noted that the BPS had offered to pay Mr Uddin what he was entitled to under his contract.

“The respondent has agreed to pay the applicant’s salary until the end of his three-year probationary period together with his salary and other benefits during the following three months’ notice period,” Mr Justice Hargun said.

“Having regard to the applicant’s Contract of Employment providing for termination of his employment by giving three months’ notice and the respondent’s right to terminate the contract of employment during the period of August 27, 2021 to September 7, 2021, if the respondent continued to believe that the applicant was unlikely to become an efficient member of the BPS, the Court has come to the view that any compensation properly due to the applicant cannot exceed the compensation already offered by the respondent.”

As such, Mr Justice Hargun ordered that the BPS pay Mr Uddin his unpaid salary and all contractual benefits until the end of what would have been his three-month notice period after his three-year probation period.

Mr Uddin joined the Bermuda Police Service as a trainee officer in September 2018 and was to serve three years of probation.

At the end of May 2021, he was placed on a three-month “informal action plan” by his supervisors, who said he needed to improve some aspects of his performance if he was to successfully complete his probation.

Two weeks into the plan, the officer received a “potential discharge” letter from Mr Simons, who was then the acting commissioner, giving him 72 hours to provide reasons why he should not be dismissed.

Mr Uddin was subsequently told by his supervisor that his performance had improved and he was “on track” to complete his probation.

Soon after, Mr Uddin received a second letter from Mr Simons, which concluded: “At the end of the probation period, you are unlikely to become an effective and efficient member of the Bermuda Police Service and so we are discharging you from the service.”

Mr Justice Hargun concluded that this was unfair, rejecting the commissioner’s claim that he had every right to dismiss Mr Uddin — whatever the reason — because he was on probation.

The Chief Justice said a “duty of fairness” meant Mr Uddin should not have been dismissed before completion of the action plan, although it would have been open to the commissioner to sack him after that.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers