Heng Kai Kok v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong JC
• Judgment Date: 28 August 1986
• Neutral Citation: [1986] SGHC 33
• Docket Number: Suit No 584 of 1983
• Date: 28 August 1986
• Year: 1986
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: G Raman (G Raman & Partners)
• Citation: [1986] SGHC 33
• Defendant Counsel: Jocelyn Ong (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulation, 1970 regs 4 & 7,Exculpatory statements,Functions of Inquiry Committee and PSC,Dismissal from employment,Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Reprint),Police,Whether wrongful,Public authority,Whether dismissal wrongful,Police Force Act (Cap 78, 1970 Ed),Mutually exclusive,art 78(1) Constitution (Amendment) Act 1970,Effect,Dismissal,Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 regs 4 & 7,Administrative Law,Disciplinary tribunals

In this action, the plaintiff claims certain declarations that his dismissal from the Singapore Police Force on 13 September 1982 was null and void and, in consequence, he remained and was entitled to be remunerated in full as a Detective Police Sergeant with effect from the date of his interdiction on 27 October 1980. Alternatively, he claims damages for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff joined the Singapore Police Force as a Recruit Police Constable on 1 March 1958. He was confirmed as Sergeant in January 1979. The terms and conditions of his service were governed by the Police Force Act (Cap 78), the Police Regulations, the Police General Orders and various letters of appointment, promotion and confirmation sent by the relevant authorities and accepted by the plaintiff from time to time.

On 14 October 1980 the plaintiff was handed a letter dated 8 October 1980 from the Acting Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) in which he was informed that the Commissioner of Police acting under s 28(A) of the Police Force Act (the Act) had referred to the Public Service Commission (PSC) a case where disciplinary Proceedings were to be taken against the plaintiff and that the same were thereby commenced against him under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 (the 1970 Regulations) on the following charges:

(a) That you, on or about 2 July 1977 whilst attached to Toa Payoh Police Station, Republic of Singapore, did solicit sexual favours from one Mdm CHEONG YOKE PENG, the mother of one LIM SIEW CHYE, a person then detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, as an inducement for securing the release of the said LIM SIEW CHYE from such lawful detention, and when she refused, you accepted her counter-proposal that she would recommend a friend of hers to you for you to have sexual relations with and you have thereby acted in disgrace of your position as a member of the Singapore Police Force and in a manner rendering you unfit to continue as a member of the said Force.

(b) That you, on or about 2 July 1977 whilst attached to the Toa Payoh Police Station, Republic of Singapore, did have sexual relations with one Mdm NG BEE HUA @ AH KEOW, part-time prostitute pursuant to an arrangement with one Mdm CHEONG YOKE PENG, the mother of one LIM SIEW CHYE, a person detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and you thereby acted in disgrace of your position as a member of the Singapore Police Force and in a manner rendering you unfit to continue as a member of the said Force.

(c) That you, on or about 2 July 1977 whilst attached to the Toa Payoh Station, Republic of Singapore, did telephone one Mdm CHEONG YOKE PENG, the mother of one LIM SIEW CHYE, a person then detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and solicited from her a gratification to wit, a sum of $2,000 as an inducement, inter alia, for the performance of an official act, viz the release of her son from lawful detention and you have thereby contravened para L122(1) of the Instruction Manual No 2 which is made applicable to you by the Police General Orders.

(d) That you, on or about 2 July 1977 whilst attached to Toa Payoh Police Station, Republic of Singapore, did telephone one Mdm CHEONG YOKE PENG, the mother of one LIM SIEW CHYE, a person then detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and carried on an obscene conversation with the said Mdm CHEONG YOKE PENG and you have thereby acted in disgrace of your position as a member of the Singapore Police Force and in a manner rendering you unfit to continue as a member of the said Force.

The said letter of 8 October 1982 also requested the plaintiff to state in writing on or before the expiry of seven working days from the date of receipt thereof any representations which he might wish to make to exculpate himself from the charges referred to.

The said letter also informed him that upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and in accordance with the merits of the case, the PSC were authorized by s 28(A)(2) of the Act to impose upon him any of the punishments prescribed in s 27 or s 28 of the Act whichever was appropriate, or to dismiss or retire him from the Police Force.

On 22 October 1980 the plaintiff, through his solicitor, wrote to the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) stating the grounds of which the plaintiff was entitled to be exculpated.

By a letter dated 22 October 1980 from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which letter was received by the plaintiff on 27 October 1980 the plaintiff was informed that the PSC had decided to interdict him from duty with effect from the date following the receipt of the said letter until further notice on half pay for one month in the first instance with effect from the date of interdiction or until the case against him was completed, whichever was earlier. Subsequently, the allowance of half pay to the plaintiff was extended from month to month until the plaintiff was dismissed.

By a letter dated 15 January 1981 from the Ministry of Home Affairs and received by the plaintiff on 23 January 1981 the plaintiff was informed that the PSC had appointed a Committee of Inquiry (the Committee) to inquire into the charges against the plaintiff. The Committee held their inquiry for nine days commencing on 5 October 1981 and, allowing for adjournments, completed their hearing on 4 November 1981.

In accordance with reg 4(13) of the 1970 Regulations, the Committee submitted on 24 August 1982 their report together with the record of the proceedings to the PSC for their consideration. The evidence of Lim Kit Hee (DW1), the Assistant Director of the Disciplinary section of the PSC was that the PSC made their decision on the report of...