Lee Keng Kee v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 25 November 1980
• Neutral Citation: [1980] SGHC 36
• Docket Number: Suit No 2751 of 1978
• Date: 25 November 1980
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1980
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam)
• Citation: [1980] SGHC 36
• Defendant Counsel: Chao Hick Tin (Senior State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Constitutional Law,Disciplinary proceedings,'A person holding office',Natural justice,Letter of dismissal silent on plaintiff's guilt on charges,arts 132(2A), 135(1) & (2) Federal Constitution,Dismissal of police inspector,arts 102(1), 110(3) & (4) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Reprint 1980),Scope of art 110(3) of Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Reprint 1980),Whether letter complied with regulations and rules of natural justice,Police inspector,Administrative Law,ss 26, 27, 28 & 28A Police Force Act (Cap 78),reg 4 Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970,art 110(3) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Reprint 1980),Dismissal,Disciplinary action,Right to be heard,Tenure of police inspector,Termination of service,Public service,Natural justice requirement before dismissal

The plaintiff became a member of the Singapore Police Force as a constable recruit in December 1965 and was confirmed in the rank of constable in 1966. His service with the police force was subject to and governed by the Police Force Act (Cap 78)(the Act) and by s 26 thereof he had to obey all lawful orders whether given verbally or in writing and also had to obey and conform to Police Regulations, Police General Orders (PGO), Force Orders and Standing Orders made under the Act. He was promoted to the rank of Inspector in the year 1971.

By letter dated 6 April 1977 the Acting Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the plaintiff that disciplinary proceedings under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 (the Regulations) had been commenced against him on the three charges therein stated. The relevant and material parts of the said letter read as follows:

I am directed by the Public Service Commission to inform you that the Commissioner of Police, acting under s 28A of the Police Force Act (Cap 78) has referred to the Public Service Commission a case where disciplinary proceedings are to be taken against you. The same are hereby commenced against you under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1970 on the following charges:

That you, Lee Keng Kee, Inspector of Police attached to the Singapore Police Force, Republic of Singapore, are charged:

a That you, between 28 February 1975 and 4 March 1975 whilst making and on a trip from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, West Malaysia and back, in the course of investigating into a case of criminal breach of trust as a servant against one Chua Ah Luck did conduct yourself in a manner which would bring the public service to disrepute, to wit, you allowed or arranged for one Yap Sing Waa, Assistant Manager-cum-Director of M/s Siptraco Pte Ltd Republic of Singapore, who was the complainant in the abovementioned case, to bear the expenses of your passage to Kuala Lumpur and other expenses incurred during the trip by you and your wife, whom you had brought along to Kuala Lumpur.

b That you, between 3pm on 1 March 1975, and 12 noon on 2 March 1975 did accept for yourself and your wife Mdm Koh Yan Choon, entertainment, to wit, the expenses of the passage from Kuala Lumpur, West Malaysia to the Genting Highlands and other expenses incurred during this trip from a member of the public who had official dealings with you, namely Yap Sing Waa, the Assistant Manager-cum-Director of M/s Siptraco Pte Ltd Republic of Singapore, such entertainment being of such a character as to place you under a real or apparent obligation to the said Yap Sing Waa, and you have thereby contravened para L 91 of Instruction Manual No 2 made applicable to you by the Police General Orders.

c That you, sometime in May 1976, did attempt to interfere with the investigations of the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau, Republic of Singapore, into allegations of corrupt practices against you by asking one Yap Sing Waa, an Assistant Manager-cum-Director of M/s Siptraco Pte Ltd Republic of Singapore, through one Lee Ah Kow @ William Yeo of No 2 Jalan Tembusu, Republic of Singapore, to inform the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau that you had paid for your wife`s passage when she accompanied you to Kuala Lumpur in February/March 1975, and you have thereby conducted yourself in a manner prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Singapore Police Force.

2 ...

(3) In accordance with para (2) of reg 4 of the said Regulations, you are requested to state in writing on or before the expiry of seven working days from the date of receipt of this letter any representations you may wish to make to exculpate yourself from the charges referred to above.

(4) For your information, upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and in accordance with the merits of the case, the Public Service Commission is authorised by sub-s (2) of s 28A of the Police Force Act to impose upon you any of the punishments prescribed in s 27 or 28 of the said Act, whichever is appropriate. The Commission may also require your dismissal or retirement from the Police Force as it deems appropriate.

(5) ...

(6) ...

Sections 27, 28 and 28A of the Act, the said reg 4, and para L 91 of the Instruction Manual No 2, referred to in charge b, are set out in Sch A hereto annexed.

In compliance with para 3 of the above letter the plaintiff submitted to the Public Service Commission (PSC) his exculpatory statement on 26 April 1977 wherein he categorically denied all the three charges brought against him. The PSC, not finding the exculpatory statement satisfactory, appointed a committee of inquiry (committee) under reg 4(3) of the Regulations.

By a letter dated 9 July 1977 the chairman of the committee (the Chairman) wrote to the plaintiff in the following terms:

1 I refer to the letter MHA 0248/72-28 Pt A dated 6 April 1977 from the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) to you in regard of the charges preferred against you under reg 4 of Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1970, and your letter of exculpation dated 26 April 1977 in reply to him.

(2) As I have been appointed chairman of the committee of inquiry by the Public Service Commission to conduct the proceedings relating to the above charges, please let me know within one week from the date of this letter:

a whether you wish to make an application to be represented by a friend, who should also be a public officer, or by an advocate so that the committee can consider and decide on your application;

b the names, addresses, designation or occupation of the witnesses whom you intend to call to be present at the inquiry so that, at the appropriate time, they may be called to give evidence at the inquiry;

c whether you would require the services of interpreters during the Inquiry;

d whether you wish to tender any documentary evidence to the committee. If you wish to do so, you should forward six copies each of the documents to me.

3 You may wish to know that the committee of inquiry comprises the following members:

a Mr Kong Yew Chye - Chairman

b Mr Steven Sim See Loy - Member

c Mr Tan Choon Seng - Member

4 On receipt of your reply, a date will be fixed for the inquiry into your case to commence.

In reply to the chairman`s letter, Messrs Chan & Ling, advocates and solicitors acting on behalf of the plaintiff wrote to the Chairman on 14 July 1977 as follows:

We have been consulted by Inspector Lee Keng Kee and handed your letter of the ninth instant with instructions to reply thereto.

We have instructions to act for him at the Inquiry.

Tentatively our client would be calling the following witnesses:

1. Mr Yeo Kim Chua Police

2. Mr Ng Leng Hua Police

3. Mr Bogaars Police

4. Mr Yap Sing Woa Siptraco Pte Ltd

5. Mr Peh Hong Kee Siptraco Pte Ltd8

6. Mr Lee Ah Kow @ William Yeo No 2 Jalan Tembusu

7. Mr John Tay CPIB

8. Mdm Koh Yan Choon Wife of our client`

On 26 August 1977 the chairman wrote to Messrs Chan & Ling in the following terms:

Thank you for your letter dated 24 August 1977.

2 Please be informed that the prosecution as well as the defence are to ensure that their own witnesses will be available to give evidence before the Inquiry at the appointed time and place. The committee has had no power to subpoena any witness to attend the inquiry. Similarly in the case of production of documentary evidence, the parties concerned will have to present the papers and submit them to the committee before the commencement of the inquiry. Such papers will be circulated to the members of the committee and to the prosecution and defence counsel so as to give them sufficient time to prepare their case. If the mentioned files are relevant to your client`s case, it will be necessary for you to submit them to the committee early.

(3) Action will be taken to provide interpreters to assist your witnesses.

On 30 August 1977 Messrs Chan & Ling wrote the following circular letter to ASP Yeo Kim Chua, Supt Ng Leng Hua, Asst Commissioner Bogaars and three other witnesses who had been named in Messrs Chan & Ling`s letter of 14 July 1977:

We act for the abovenamed inspector in respect of an inquiry which has been scheduled to be held on Tuesday, 6 September at 9am at the Ministry of Home Affairs, Phoenix Park.

You are required to be present on the above date and time to give evidence.

On 31 August 1977 OC `B` Div, AG Aeria, wrote to Messrs Chan & Ling, copied to the Chairman, asking them to note that Superintendent Ng Leng Hua had left the Republic for Stockholm/ UK for meeting/vacation leave on 30 August 1977 and that he would be resuming duty on 14 October 1977.

The plaintiff appeared by counsel before the committee of inquiry on 6, 8 and 9 September 1977 when the inquiry was concluded and the plaintiff was informed that he would be notified of the result in due course.

The next thing that happened was that the plaintiff was informed by a letter dated 7 December 1977 from the Acting Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs that he had been dismissed from the service with effect from the day following the date the said letter was received by him.

As the said letter did not say whether the plaintiff had been found guilty on all the said charges or any one or more of them, the plaintiff`s solicitors on 24 May 1978 inquired of the Permanent Secretary the charges on which the plaintiff had been found guilty. A reply was received saying, that the plaintiff had been found guilty on charges (a) and (b) as set out above.

It was in these...