When Can a Disciplinary Chairperson Reject a Plea Bargain?

Lessons from South African Police Service v Mkonto and Others (PA 8/24) [2026] ZALAC

Plea bargains are increasingly used in workplace disciplinary proceedings to resolve misconduct matters efficiently. But what happens when a disciplinary chairperson disagrees with the sanction negotiated by the parties?

The Labour Appeal Court has now provided important guidance.

The Case

A SAPS sergeant faced charges of unauthorised use of an official vehicle, private use of state resources and falsifying travel records. During the disciplinary hearing, he entered into a plea agreement with SAPS: he would plead guilty in exchange for a suspended dismissal and a R500 fine.

The chairperson accepted the guilty plea but rejected the agreed sanction, dismissing the employee instead.

What the Labour Appeal Court Decided

The Court confirmed two important principles:

• A chairperson is not bound by a negotiated sanction. A disciplinary chairperson must independently determine an appropriate sanction after considering all the evidence and relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.
• A chairperson cannot accept only part of a plea bargain. If the agreed sanction is rejected, fairness requires that the employee be given an opportunity to reconsider the guilty plea. A chairperson cannot retain the guilty plea while discarding the negotiated sanction.

Practical Guidelines

Where a chairperson is unwilling to accept an agreed sanction, the Court held that the proper approach is to:

• explain why the proposed sanction is unacceptable;
• allow the parties to renegotiate;
• permit the employee to withdraw the guilty plea if no agreement is reached; and
• if the plea is withdrawn, restart the disciplinary hearing before a different chairperson, unless the employee agrees otherwise.

Why the Dismissal Was Upheld

Although the Court found procedural unfairness in the handling of the plea bargain, it held that the dismissal itself was substantively fair. The evidence established that the employee had misused a state vehicle and falsified official records. Given the seriousness of the dishonesty, dismissal was justified.

Instead of reinstatement, the employee received compensation equivalent to three months' remuneration for the procedural unfairness.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This judgment provides valuable guidance for disciplinary proceedings:

• A disciplinary chairperson retains an independent discretion when determining sanction.
• A guilty plea and the negotiated sanction form part of one agreement and should not be separated.
• If a proposed sanction is rejected, the employee must be given a fair opportunity to reconsider the plea.
• Employers should draft plea agreements that expressly recognise the chairperson's discretion to reject a proposed sanction.
• Dishonesty—particularly involving public resources or positions of trust—will ordinarily justify dismissal.

The decision reinforces both the independence of disciplinary chairpersons and the importance of procedural fairness when plea agreements are used in workplace discipline.