That consequently, the ruling handed down by the Bamako Labour Court adds an additional condition to the dismissal procedure; That from the foregoing, it should thus be said that the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO is consistent with established procedure , justified on the merits andconsequently overturn the ruling in its entirety, while, dismissing all the claims of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO as without merit; In response, Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO, through her legal counsel, argues that she was hired by the BNDA in April 1991 and assigned to the communications department ; That subsequently she became Deputy Manager, before becoming Bamako Branch Manager; That during the thirteen (13) years spent working at the bank; she never scored less than 93/100; That this is an undeniable proof that she has always properly met her contractual obligations, without being found guilty of any wrong; That surprisingly, her employer choose to create trouble for her for alleged instances of crimes against public property, first by suspending her from work on 23 June 2004, before dismissing her on 20 July 2004, for supposed serious misconduct, and this , despite a contrary opinion, issued on 14 July, 2004, by the Regional Department of Labour ; That charged and brought before the court of assizes, the submitting party was acquitted following Order No. 72 of 19 April 2013 during the same hearing ; That this acquittal order shows that the submitting party is innocent and aptly expresses the abusive nature of her suspension and dismissal; That it is on this ground that the submitting party had grounds to file proceedings to claim benefits and damages before the labour court; That it is right for the Bamako Labour Court to grant the request of the submitting party; That notwithstanding this decision grounded in fact and law, the BNDA states that it has taken note of the said decision; That none of the submissions of the appellant has merit; That the principle of “separation of criminal and professional wrongs” is without merit in as much as the said principle does not apply in this instance; That in this case, the acts described by the appellant as professional wrong were examined by the court of assizes under the description “crimes against public property”; That after the examination of the facts, the court of assizes handed down an acquittal ruling, sufficiently proving the inaccuracy of the facts justifying the dismissal of the submitting party ;