Jacob v Attorney General

• Judge: Wee Chong Jin CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 July 1970
• Neutral Citation: [1970] SGHC 7
• Citation: [1970] SGHC 7
• Defendant Counsel: Mrs R Polack and Woo Tchi Chu (State Counsel)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ho Thian Cheh (SK Lee & Co)
• Date: 01 July 1970
• Docket Number: Suit No 382 of 1969
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Constitutional Law,Natural justice,Public service commission,Article 7 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (RS(A) 14 of 1966),Whether dismissal subsequent to revocation of Regulations valid,Request to be represented by advocate and solicitor refused,Disciplinary proceedings,Public service,Administrative Law,Inquiry under Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1962,No express power to dismiss -Whether power to dismiss is implied by power to appoint,Dismissal of public servant,Article 135(2) Federal Constitution (FM 26 of 1963),Commission advising Head of State to dismiss and subsequent approval,Decision not implemented,Power to appoint,Whether contrary to rules of natural justice – Whether the right to question witnesses required by the rules of natural justice,Report to Public Service Commission,Revocation of 1962 Regulations,Article 75 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (RS(A) 14 of 1966)

The facts in this case are not in dispute. The plaintiff entered the service of the Government of Singapore on 20 December 1940. He was appointed a senior cleansing inspector on 1 January 1957 a post which he held until he was dismissed on 27 September 1965. The letter of dismissal dated 27 September 1965 signed by the Permanent Secretary (Health), was in the following terms:

Sir,

I refer to my letter No M of HCf 013/63 of 26 June 1963 informing you that your dismissal from the service is being considered on the charges set out in the above letter and requesting you to state any grounds upon which you rely to exculpate yourself on the charges.

2. I am directed to inform you that the Public Service Commission after consideration of your reply to the charges and of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1962, has decided that, you be dismissed from the service as from 27 September 1965.

3. You are hereby dismissed the service as from the said date and are not entitled to any salary as from that date.

4. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter on the duplicate copy attached.

I have the honour to be.

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Signed.

The plaintiff`s dismissal was the final act in disciplinary action first initiated on the 26 June 1963 by a letter from the same Permanent Secretary (Health) the relevant portions of which are as follows:

Sir,

I am directed to inform you that consideration is being given to the question of your dismissal from the service on the following grounds:

(a) That you did commit an act amounting to neglect of duty in that you failed to prepare a Duty Roster for the months commencing from March 1962 to February 1963 for your subordinate officers, viz ... .

(b) That you did commit acts amounting to neglect of duty by failing to supervise the work of your subordinate Officers, viz ... on Sundays and Public Holidays as set out hereunder: ...

(c) That you did commit acts amounting to neglect of duty by failing to inform your superior officer, viz, the Health Officer (Katong), that your subordinate officers, Messrs ... had ceased to work on Sundays and Public Holidays as set out hereunder: ...

(d) That you have committed misconduct, to wit, gross insubordination in that you not only failed to carry out instructions given to you by your superior officer, viz, the Health Officer, but you also instigated your subordinate officers, viz ... to commit neglect of duty and you have thereby acted to the prejudice of discipline and proper administration of the Cleansing Department, Ministry of Health, Singapore.

2. I am to request you to state in writing on or before 4 July 1963 any grounds upon which you rely to exculpate yourself on the charge referred to above.

The plaintiff submitted his exculpatory statement denying the allegations contained in the said letter which, however, was of no avail, as on 25 October 1963, he was informed by letter that a committee had been appointed by the Public Service Commission under reg 4(3) of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1962, to inquire into the matter. That letter, which was signed by the chairman of the committee so appointed, stated that the `question of your dismissal will be brought before the committee on Monday 4 November 1963 at the sitting of the committee to be held at the conference room, Ministry of Health, Palmer Road, at 2.15 pm`. The plaintiff was also notified by that letter to appear on that date to give evidence in person and to give notice to the chairman, at an early date, of the names of witnesses, if any, whom he may wish to be called on his behalf.

The first sitting of the committee of inquiry was however not held until 3 February 1964 and it sat on 16 occasions, the last of which was on 26 February 1964. It also held two `preliminary meetings` before commencing its sittings. The plaintiff applied to the committee for permission to be represented by an advocate and solicitor. When this application was refused, he applied for permission to be represented by an officer in the public service and this too was refused.

It is common ground that the committee of inquiry conducted the entire proceedings without the assistance of any one acting on behalf of the Government or of the plaintiff and the notes recorded by the chairman of the evidence of the witnesses called and of the statements of the plaintiff at the inquiry were a full and accurate record of the evidence and statements. In all, the committee called and examined seventeen witnesses, all of them officers in the public service.

Subsequently the committee, in accordance with the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Regulations), submitted its report to the Public Service Commission. This report is in the agreed bundle of documents and in it the committee stated that in its opinion charges (a), (b) and (c) were well-founded but that there was no evidence to support charge (d). The Public Service Commission, acting in accordance with the 1962 Regulations, advised the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (the Head of State of the then State of Singapore) to dismiss the plaintiff from the public service. The advice of the Public Service Commission was approved by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on 10 June 1964.

In effect the Yang di-Pertuan Negara decided to dismiss the plaintiff but, for reasons which have not been disclosed to the court, this decision was not implemented and was never communicated to the plaintiff up to the time when the 1962 Regulations were revoked and replaced by the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Rules). The plaintiff, in the meantime, continued working and was permitted to work on the basis that he was an officer in the public service.

It is convenient at this juncture to note that the 1962 Regulations were made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on 17 September 1962 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by s 86(2) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council 1958. The 1958 Singapore Constitution was revoked and replaced by the Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (State Constitutions) Order in Council 1963. This 1963 Singapore Constitution came into operation, by virtue of art 94, immediately before Malaysia Day, ie 16 September 1963. However, by virtue of art 105 the 1962 Regulations continued in force `with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Constitution and the Malaysia Act` until they were revoked by the 1964 Rules which were made on 22 October 1964 by the Public Service Commission in exercise of the powers conferred by art 80(2) of the 1963 Singapore Constitution.

It is clear, therefore, that although a decision, valid under the 1962 Regulations, had been arrived at to dismiss the plaintiff, it had not been implemented and was unknown to the plaintiff when the 1962 Regulations were revoked and replaced by the 1964 Rules in October 1964. He was dismissed on 27 September 1965 by a letter the full terms of which appear earlier in this judgment.

The question I have to decide is whether or not the plaintiff had been validly dismissed. In the statement of claim as finally amended he claims that `his purported dismissal by the Public Service Commission was illegal, ultra vires and invalid on the following grounds:

(i) The Public Service Commission had no power to dismiss the plaintiff under the said Rules since the commission`s power in relation to the said disciplinary proceedings had been exhausted by reason or action taken under the said Regulations.

(ii) There was no basis upon which any reasonable person or body of persons could come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of the allegations made against him.

(iii) The said committee acted in violation of art 135(2) of...