Bridget Conway, a protocol officer to President Mary McAleese, has failed in her High Court bid to stop a disciplinary investigation into her conduct.
The internal inquiry, including allegations of her having altered records, will now go ahead as will a full High Court trial on the question of the fairness of the inquiry process.
Mr Justice Kevin Feeney stated yesterday it was his clear view Ms Conway had not made out a case establishing that the disciplinary process was so flawed as not to protect her rights to fair procedures and natural justice, and as such required the intervention of the court.
He dismissed her application for an interlocutory injunction restraining her employers from conducting a disciplinary hearing. He said the granting of such an injunction would have the effect of discontinuing the disciplinary investigation process.
Judge Feeney said Ms Conway had alleged the disciplinary process was entirely bogus and brought about by mal fides.
She had claimed the withdrawal of her duties was consistent only with the pre-determination of wrongdoing on her part and the process would inevitably lead to an adverse finding and amounted to a sham.
He said the evidence to date before the court was not sufficient as to establish mal fides. She was not at risk of dismissal but possibly faced transfer from the office of secretary to the President to another Government department. She was nevertheless entitled to the protection of natural and constitutional justice.
Judge Feeney rejected her argument that the disciplinary code required the necessity of an actual complainant and the requirement of signed statements. The suggestion that the so-called charges against her had been altered had no basis.
Judge Feeney said she had clearly known and understood the nature of the allegations against her and had responded to them in a full and forceful manner through her solicitors.
On her grounds of delay he accepted there had been some but not such as to lead the court to conclude that a fair and proper hearing could not occur.
He was of the clear view that her application was premature and that it would be neither correct nor proper of the court to intervene by way of injunction in the disciplinary process.
"The courts should be reluctant to interfere with an ongoing disciplinary process in the absence of strong and compelling evidence to support such intervention. On the evidence available that is not the case," Judge Feeney said.
The court could and should not proceed on the basis urged by the plaintiff that the process would inevitably lead to her being adjudged guilty of inappropriate conduct.
In his view she had not established that there was a fair issue to be tried or that the process had been flawed to the extent it would be appropriate for the court to intervene.
Judge Feeney said Ms Conway had established an arguable case and a fair question to be tried in relation to the question of animus, but the balance of justice and the adequacy of damages were against her.
He told Tom Mallon, counsel for the State, that Ms Conway, Clane Road, Celbridge, Co Kildare, remained in her job at the same level and not under any threat of dismissal or suffering financial loss.
Ms Conway's proceedings have been brought against the Taoiseach, Ireland, the Attorney General and Brian Spain, a personnel officer in the Department of Defence, who has been nominated to conduct the disciplinary hearing.
The court is to deal later with applications for the dismissal of Mr Spain as a defendant in the case and the attaching of two other civil servants as defendants.
Ms Conway claimed it was her close relationship with the President and more particularly a hug from her on her return from the funerals of the victims of the Omagh bombing which had triggered the sequence of alleged events which brought her to the courts.