The previously terminated and then reinstated senior staff of the Climate Change Development Authority (CCDA), Mr. Alfred Rungol, has accused the CCDA for misleading the public and stakeholders about the nature of his termination, which was presented in a press statement to the media just recently. Mr. Rungol has come out to give his side of the story to PNG HAUSBUNG, stating that all that was said in the statement made by CCDA’s Acting Managing Director, Mr. William Lakain, are not true accounts of what led up to his termination in 2022. “My reputation is on the line when CCDA puts a press statement on media; however, all these are false information,” he said. “I have sorted all allegations and went through all the process of court and it took me 15 long months to go through all the processes to provide all my evidence.” Mr. Rungol stated that CCDA took him to court, but the case was dismissed and that he was reinstated back to office, following processes which he went through.“I have two confirmation letter of reinstatement from the Department of Personal (DPM) Management, one was in October and another in September from the DPM Secretary Taies Sansan.” Rungol stated that he never expected this issue to surface again after it was already dealt with in court, and that the Department of Personal Management has found out that all accusations were baseless with no clear or proper evidence. Rungol said that because the CCDA cannot take him back to court, the only way to attack him now is to tarnish his reputation in the press statement that was issued to the media. Meanwhile, as per the press statement from the CCDA, in 2022 the CCDA terminated the employment of Mr. Rungol, who was a senior staff member, following a comprehensive review of a number of serious disciplinary matters by CCDA's Internal Disciplinary Committee. The statement read that the decision to terminate him was reached following due processes and in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment contract then. The following are the series of serious offences that the CCDA said was committed by Mr. Rungol, which breached the conditions of his employment contract: 1. Swearing and Harassment of several CCDA senior female employees. 2. Fighting with one of his immediate subordinates at the CCDA premises whilst under the influence of alcohol in view of other staff and development partners. 3. Totally wrecked a CCDA hired vehicle, whilst on official duty travel, which cost CCDA K345, 000 to repair. 4. Causing disharmony and suppression within his Division and amongst other senior and General staff of CCDA. However, in Mr. Rungol’s version of the story, he refuted the series of offences stated by the CCDA as their base for his termination. Here is Mr. Rungol’s account of the incidents that led to the termination of his contract. 1) Rungol said he never swore or use any foul language against any female officer, nor did he harass any female employee. He said some female employees were drunk during official hours and one was involved in a sexual activity with someone who was not her partner. So, he had to report her for the misconduct. 2) With regards to the fighting, he said the statement was one-sided and did not get the full scope of the incident. He claimed that an immediate subordinate was disciplined for malpractice in CCDA, after he was caught drinking in the office. Mr. Rungol said that he and the highly intoxicated staff had an argument and the staff issued threats against him and his family. Mr. Rungol claimed that this incident took place in the presence of a very senior staff of the CCDA, but instead Mr. Rungol said he was disciplined for the incident and not the staff in concern. 3) In terms of the hired vehicle, Mr. Rungol said he never crashed any vehicles that belonged to the CCDA. He claimed that he was not even inside the vehicle at the time of accident and was never near the accident site and was only told about it the next morning. Mr. Rungol stated that his name was never on the police incident report when it was presented in court. 4) On the fourth incident, Mr. Rungol said he never caused disharmony amongst staff at work. He claimed that this was brought up because CCDA staff were engaged in corrupt practices. He alleged that some CCDA staff were doubling travelling allowances from both the government and the development partner funds and he was going to expose them. “These kind of small corrupt activities are happening within CCDA, so because I am a whistle blower, CCDA had to make false allegations against me so that they can continue with their corrupt practices,” Mr. Rungol said.