Attorney General v Lee Keng Kee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 04 May 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGCA 6
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 106 of 1980
• Date: 04 May 1982
• Year: 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chao Hick Tin and Rosalind Ong (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Citation: [1982] SGCA 6
• Defendant Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Scope of right,art 110(3) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,Administrative Law,Whether there was compliance with regulations and rules of natural justice,Public authority,Dismissal of police inspector,ss 26, 27, 28 & 28A Police Force Act (Cap 78),Termination of service,art 135(2) Federal Constitution of Malaysia,Right to be heard,reg 4 Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970,Constitutional Law,Public service,Police

This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court in which it was declared that the dismissal of the respondent on 11 December 1977 from the service of the Singapore Police Force was null and was still an inspector in the Police Force and was entitled to be remunerated as such.

It was contended on behalf of the Attorney General that the learned trial judge had erred in law in holding that the dismissal of the respondent was not in accordance with art 110(3) of the Constitution of Singapore because the respondent had not been given an opportunity to be heard in mitigation on the penalty of dismissal proposed to be imposed upon him.

At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, we allowed the appeal. We now set out our reasons.

In December 1965 the respondent joined the service of the Singapore Police Force as a constable recruit. In the following year, he was confirmed in the rank of a constable. In 1971 he was promoted to the rank of an Inspector.

By a letter dated 6 April 1977 the Acting Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the respondent that disciplinary proceedings under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 (the Regulations) had been commenced against him. Three charges were preferred against him. The material parts of the 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...