The allegation against Mr Jones: "Failure to satisfactorily discharge your responsibilities under Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 by deciding not to advise or caution members of the general purposes committee, at its meeting on September 29, 2003, of the potential impact of agreeing to proposals to implement a new pay and grading structure, when the financial implications had not been properly validated or checked, that has resulted in the costs of implementation exceeding the financial costs advised by approximately £1 million per year."

Mr Brooke said that Mr Jones had been prevented from commissioning his normal financial checks on the scheme by the complexity of the Pay Modelling system, to which he did not have access.

It was now apparent that a few random checks would have quickly revealed the errors in the data, given that 546 out of 784 records were inaccurate. However, Mr Brooke added that this would not have been clear at the time.

Mr Brooke instigated two exercises to check the figures, and said that if Mr Jones had had access to such figures before the general purposes committee, he would have insisted on postponing the decision.

Mr Brooke said that Mr Jones's department had limited professional resources, it was already coping with unusual pressures, and that the new pay scheme was already delayed. A proper financial check on the figures would have entailed a further delay of a month or more.

However, on balance, Mr Brooke said he did not believe an s.151 officer (or chief finance officer), "can wash his hands of responsibility for financial appraisal of a project of substantial financial importance to the authority where such appraisal is technically possible."

Mr Jones therefore had failed to discharge his responsibility under s.151 of the Local Government Act 1972 in that he failed properly to advise members of the general purposes committee of the financial consequences of the new pay and grading structure.

Although he believed this amounted to misconduct, Mr Brooke said he had come to the decision with some reluctance, because, "I am quite clear that Mr Jones approached the matter conscientiously and took what he believed to be a reasonable decision in the circumstances".

Mr Jones also took the lead in ensuring that members were given the true picture, and the circumstances fell a long way short of misconduct that would warrant dismissal.

He had already suffered much stress as a result of the proceedings and his suspension, and a warning would not be appropriate or serve any useful purpose, Mr Brooke added.

Mr Brooke saw no reason why Mr Jones should not re-assume his duties.

l Mr Jones was unavailable for comment this week.