Judge dismisses case of former cadet who cheated in exam

A former regiment cadet who admitted to cheating in an examination has lost his constitutional claim in which he alleged he was treated unfairly when he was discharged.

In a written decision, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed Paul Jaglal’s case and ordered that he pay the State’s cost of defending the lawsuit.

Jaglal sought several declarations and to have the regiment reinstate him. He claimed he was victimised during his training and endured racist remarks by his superiors. Jaglal also claimed he was given extra tasks because of his ethnicity, religious beliefs, and political affiliations.

He said discipline of cadets was not equal and, because he chose not to use obscene language, he was given extra laps to run.

In 2016, Jaglal and other cadets agreed to help each other in an exam. They were caught and Jaglal took responsibility for the entire batch. He was charged and pleaded guilty, admonished, and recommended for discharge. He was given a lifeline when he was allowed to retrain with the upcoming batch, but he did not turn up for sessions and was then discharged on the grounds of “having enlisted as a potential officer on his own request failing to qualify for selection as an officer cadet."

He received his discharge papers on November 28, 2017.

In his decision, Seepersad said based on the evidence, Jaglal was treated fairly before he was charged, was given an opportunity to explain himself, and was even allowed to retrain with the new batch of cadets.

He also emphasised that Jaglal admitted to cheating in the examination, and was caught.

“A no-tolerance approach to dishonesty in relation to those who enlist to serve under the umbrella of national security has to be encouraged.

“A heightened obligation exists during the recruitment, training and probationary period, and administrators must exercise vigilance to weed out unsuitable persons whose behavioural and characteristic traits do not accord with the ethos of noble, selfless national service.

“One bad egg can spoil the entire batch,” he said, as he found no merit in Jaglal’s claim of unfair and unreasonable treatment.

In relation to his assertions of discrimination, Seepersad said it was open to Jaglal to seek relief under the Equal Opportunity Act but he did not.

Jaglal was represented by attorneys Arden Williams and Shelly-Ann Daniel, while attorneys Keisha Prosper, Andella Ramroop, and Laura Persad represented the State.