That the moment the Court of Assizes declares that the submitting party is not guilty as accused, the principle that should be summoned is the principle of the identity of criminal and civil or professional offences; That consequently, this first submission from the appellant has no merit and should consequently be dismissed; That the appellant argues that the appealed ruling states that the said dismissal was done without notice; That this analysis is hinged in many regards on a highly-mistaken interpretation of article L 40 of the Mali Labour Code ; That the submitting party was in fact dismissed for serious misconduct because s he authoris ed two overruns whereas she was no longer the Branch Manager; That these allegations do not hold up to analyse, given that according to article L.51 paragraph 2 of the Mali Labour Code, contract termination shall be considered abusive when dismissal is carried out without a legitimate reason or when the reason is inaccurate; That this is indeed the situation in this case, the acquittal orders sufficiently proves that there is no serious misconduct that can be attributed to the submitting party whereas article L40 of the Mali Labour Code permits solely termination without notice in the event of serious misconduct; That in the absence of serious misconduct, notice is obligatory; That consequently, the first judge properly interpreted article L4Q of the Mali Labour Code ; That it is thus appropriate to dismiss this second argument as without merit; That the BNDA is claiming to attack this appealed ruling for having dismissed the submitting party without due cause and reason, since the dismissal was not approved by the labour inspector; That this argument cannot be upheld in as much as employers, who want to dismiss an employee hired since three months now, must inform the competent labour inspector through registered mail including information on the employee, ,employer and the ground for dismissal ; (article L40 paragraph 2 of the Mali Labour Code) That upon weighing the scope of the facts, the labour inspector warned the BNDA against its desire to dismiss ; That the judge did not base his decision on the absence of a favourable opinion from the inspector, he simply reiterated the safeguards that would have prevented the BNDA from finding it self before a fait accompli; That as such, this argument should be dismissed as without merit; That given the foregoing, the appealed ruling is the outcome of the proper administration of justice; That it falls, to this court, to draw the necessary conclusions under law, by simply confirming the appealed ruling in its entirety . UNDER THE LAW Whereas that the dismissal letter of 20 July, 2004 spelling out the contours of the dispute justifies the dismissal of Mme DIAKITE Oumou DIALLO for serious misconduct;