The peak of the criticism came in the current decision of the judge with them, when over 21 pages he provided shocking statements about the conduct of the state during the four and a half years in which the affair has been going on: “The words are written not to preach but to provoke,” the judge wrote, and it is clear that he embraced the cry of the people who stood in front of him and said: “My life is at stake here, do you understand that?!”
The judge explained and analyzed the details of the case “from a bird’s eye view”, as he said, to demonstrate the injustice done to the defamer, went down to the details of the allegations in the current dismissal attempt in which he found almost nothing, and finally provided a comprehensive, even philosophical, view of the state’s attitude towards the individual.
1. The decision describes the state’s conduct towards Makkash: “Beginning with an idle procedure for dismissal of non-compliance that was opened against him in 2019 and not before, continuation of a lengthy disciplinary procedure that was all a ruse to dig up personal accounts, continuation of the applicant’s failure to return to his position except after the court required it and ended in a management atmosphere that did not allow the applicant to perform his work properly”.
According to the judge, “In recent years, the applicant has gone through a path that should not be exaggerated. At every intersection he was able to pass, there was no relief before him, but a continuation of a journey of agony that reached its (current) climax in the events of the application before us. Although at every such intersection, someone stood with a warning sign or a red light in his hands , and these were directed towards the state as an employer, there is no one who will look and listen, understand and listen, to return all those involved to a course of normal actions.”
Among other things, the court notes that even though “shocking things were revealed in the case that were supposed to cause the plaintiff’s managers to take stock of what was going on in their unit” they continued their journey against him.
The same applies to the restrictions imposed on Makkashe by the Treasury Commissioner Kobi Bar Natan and his deputy Efi Malkin, upon his return to work in May 2021. “A regime of meticulous and meticulous management was imposed on him, which apparently does not correspond to his status as a senior employee,” states the judge. This included, among other things, obtaining prior approval for any departure from his office, including minor actions. “This regime, as it turns out, was effective,” the judge writes sarcastically, and mentions that a few months after his return to work, many alleged flaws in the conduct of Makfesh had already been found and he was summoned in December 2021 for a hearing before dismissal before the Director General of the Ministry of Finance Ram Belinkov.
The conclusion reached by the tribunal is that a “picture is so problematic that it can be said that the burden placed on the state to justify his dismissal is much heavier than the usual administrative burden for an employee whose case is ‘clean'”, stating that the state did not meet this requirement, and comments that the tribunal does not practice to intervene in managerial decisions and enforce labor relations, “in our opinion, this is the extreme and exceptional case in which there is no escape from providing the requested remedy.”
2. The main legal reasoning in the court’s decision is the argument presented at the hearing by attorney Ila Honigman, who represents Makfesh, according to which his dismissal was not carried out in the proper way. Adjustment,” states the judge. “In order to justify a different course, the decisions were embellished with expressions such as poor professional functioning, poor work ethic, disdain for superiors, gross negligence, etc.”
The judge gives great weight to the testimony of Blinkov, who repeated in his interrogation in court that the main reason for the dismissal from Makkash was due to disciplinary infractions. This allowed the judge to determine that a problematic “detour route” was taken here: “According to the testimony of the CEO of the office before us, the ax came out of the bag. The CEO has therefore found a route to bypass those disturbing delays, caused by the need to uphold the rights of a suspect or accused of disciplinary offenses. It is enough to call things ‘inconsistency’ and at Kesem headquarters there is no need for an investigation, clear evidence, a warning, etc. in these there is also no need for persuasion beyond doubt Reasonable. It’s enough to add a few ‘questions’ and a few ‘inconsistencies’ and the employee will be fired.” The judge states that the entire procedure was reproached with this, but emphasizes that even without the mistake in choosing the dismissal route, the existing circumstances do not justify the dismissal of Makkash.
The judge demonstrates how the state tried to inflate a marginal incident of a detractor’s poor reporting of a trip to a professional conference, using bombastic statements in the dismissal letter. Also with regard to the claims of actions taken by a defamer contrary to the conflict of interest settlement he signed, the court states that in one case “he did not act at all in a conflict of interest that he knew or should have known at the time, and when he became aware of it, he stopped acting and reported to his superiors.” And regarding another case, “the prosecutor should have been more careful, but mistakes happen and will happen. In this case, it is a second-order conflict of interest, which was carried out openly and clearly due to a mistake. The mistake was corrected immediately and immediately exposed. Basing a dismissal on this basis – is a far-reaching matter.”
1 Viewing the gallery
From the right: Director General of the Ministry of Finance Ram Belinkov and Judge Amitzur with them. “An extreme case that requires relief”
(Photos: Spokesperson of the Ministry of Finance, Judiciary website)
3. It is evident that the judge, the son of the former chairman of the National Security Council, Brigadier General Effie Itam, tried to convey a principled message about the values that the state should adopt. He quotes from the biblical story of Joseph and his brothers to describe the improbable situation in the public service and is revealed here When “the hand of man is against his fellow man… a man sees his brother in distress when he pleads with him and does not listen,” and expresses regret that the state makes this a part of the agenda, “and what kind of situation in which a person makes a mistake in fulfilling ‘instructions and procedures’ is a situation that justifies fighting him fiercely for his words.” The judge, “one cannot put up with a situation where instructions and procedures become a means to an end, in the case of human sacrifices and calves, Yashkun”, a quote from the book of Hosea, intended to criticize a situation of inversion of values (when the animal becomes more important than the person), as the judge implies happened in this case.
Also prominent in the court’s decision is the quote from the poem “Vantana Zahek” from the Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur prayers: “A man’s foundation is dust and his end is dust. With his soul he will bring his bread. He is like broken pottery, like dry hay and noble bread.” The judge with them chooses to bring him to emphasize that a person is always prone to making mistakes, therefore, according to him, the model that the state is trying to present, “as if there is a perfect civil servant, one who does not make mistakes and will never be caught in a crime” is actually an imaginary aspiration.
After all these harsh statements and the statement that these are “circumstances that are the exception to the exceptions that justify intervention”, we will see what will prevail in the state’s decision: common sense or a measure of pride.