Whereas to order the BNDA to pay the above-mentioned sums to Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO, the trial judge of the Bamako Labour was of the opinion that her dismissal was irregular and without due and reasonable cause and he came to this conclusion based principally on acquittal order No. 72 of 19 April 2013 from the Bamako Court of Assizes, the unfavourable opinion given by the labour inspector regarding the dismissal request expressed by the BNDA and non compliance with the notice; Whereas a principle in law, drawn from the separation of criminal and disciplinary procedures and the established case law, states that when criminal and disciplinary proceedings have been launched simultaneously against a worker, no law nor general legal principle prohibit an employer from ruling on the proceeding before the judge in the criminal proceeding has decided. (C.E. 27January 1993, Ivars, req. 1 15274, Rec. Leb. p. 852) ; Whereas in this case, analysis of case document s, the facts of the case as they are and those uncontested by and Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO prove that June 8 , 2004, she authorised two overruns of CFAF100,000,000 CFAF 196,320,000 respectively for third parties; Whereas she was no longer the branch manager and did in fact know that in her capacity as bank executive, such overruns were not allowed by the Loan Procedures Manual of her employer's department and the personal letter of sub-delegation of power for granting loans sent to her by the Chief Executive Officer; Whereas it has been constantly shown that Mme DIAKITE was not authorised by the Bank to make such commitments, of about CFAF 300,000,000 , - the letter to sub-delegate the power to grant loans set the said power between CFAF 2,000,000 and CFAF 8,000,000 depending on the type of loan and most especially she did not have the power to do this, given that since 02 June 2004, she had been relieved of her duties; Whereas the contrary opinion of the labour inspector, according to the provisions of article 1.40 of the Mali Labour Code, does not bind the employer and is not a condition to make the dismissal valid; That the employer is at best bound by the decision taken by the judge in the criminal proceeding, contrary to the statements of the labour inspector and could thus dismiss Mme DIAKITE, without notice, immediately it considered her behaviour serious misconduct ; Whereas, it is established case law that “a decision to free (or acquit) taken by a judge in a criminal proceeding that does not contest the material accuracy of the acts a worker is accused of does not prevent the dismissal of the worker. (C.E. 4 October 1989, Leberche, req. 74142) ; Whereas it is settled that an acquittal order, even if it contains proof that Mme DIAKITE is not guilty of crimes against public property, does not however contest the substantiveness of the acts she is accused of, notably granting a loan of about CFAF 300,000,000 to third parties to the Bank's detriment, whereas she did not even have the power or capacity to do so; That furthermore, the situation could hardly be otherwise, given the provisions of article El 1 of the Mali Labour Code, only the competent labour court can rule on the substantiveness of the facts, considered in this case to be serious misconduct; 4