That the court should consider the serious misconduct committed by Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO and alleged by the BNDA, on a professional level, regardless of the criminal wrong ; That the the facts of the case however clearly show that Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO was indeed dismissed with due reason and cause. That as a matter of fact, Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO, while she was no longer the manager of the BNDA branch authorised two overruns of several tens of millions ; That by acting in this manner, she was guilty of serious misconduct, justifying her dismissal; That furthermore, she herself admitted that made a mistake by stating “although I am aware of the administrative wrong that I committed and underestimated earlier on, I did not commit any embezzlement that could push me to run away”; That this admission alone does in fact justify her dismissal in as much as she failed in her duties; That she admitted that she violated the bank's procedural requirements in this instance ; That this admitted professional wrong made the Bank lose close to three hundred million; That subsequently, this appealed ruling wrongly interpreted the provisions of article L.40 of the Mali Labour Code , because to declare that the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO is irregular, the appealed ruling argues that the said dismissal was performed without the issuance of a notice ; That this analysis is hinged on a wrong interpretation of the above-mentioned article L.40, which provides that employment contracts may be terminated without notice in the event of serious misconduct; That Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO was however dismissed for serious misconduct because she authoris ed two overruns whereas she was no longer the branch manager; That this ruling wrongly considered that the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO was irregular ; That in conclusion, the ground deducted from the absence of approval from the labour inspector cannot equally be upheld; That to declare that the disputed dismissal has no due cause and reason, the ruling handed down argues that the dismissal was not approved by the labour inspector ; That this means consequently that the ruling handed down seems to make the licitness of any dismissal subject to the approval of the labour inspector; That by deciding in this manner, the appealed ruling lacks a legal basis; That in fact, the opinion of the labour inspector has no compelling normative power; That as such, the official who sought the opinion does not have to comply with this opinion and he/she is as such free to comply with or disregard this opinion; That the appealed ruling seems to use opinion and prior administrative authorisation interchangeably; That there is no due reason and cause for the dismissal of Madame DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO if dismissal is tied to a prior administrative authorisation of dismissal ; That however no provision in the Mali Labour Code makes the dismissal procedure subservient to a prior administrative authorisation for dismissal ;