Peter William Nappalli v Institute of Technical Education (formerly known as Vocational and Industrial Training Board)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 31 October 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 279
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 18 February 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Asogan (R Raman & Company)
• Defendant Counsel: K Ramesh (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 279

Judgment:

delivered by Yong Pung How CJ

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The background

1. The plaintiff, a former training officer of the defendants, applied by summon for further directions no 1399 of 1997 (the application) for inspection of documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings taken by the defendants against him in 1994 and which lead to his dismissal. The learned assistant registrar who hear the application refused to grant an order whereupon the plaintiff appealed to a judge in chambers.

2. The plaintiff's appeal came up for hearing before me and I allowed it to the following extent:

the defendants would provide the plaintiff with a copy of the record of the proceedings convened against the plaintiff and which led to his dismissal (but not the report of the Committee of Inquiry) only if the plaintiff within 14 days of the appeal confirmed to the defendants' solicitors that, he accepted the record of proceedings in toto without challenge, in particular that the evidence given by the witnesses called for the plaintiff and the defendants would be accepted and their presence dispensed with, at the trial.

The plaintiff has appealed against my ruling (Civil Appeal No 105 of 1997).

The facts

3. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff was interviewed twice by the defendants in April 1984 before he was employed as a trainee training officer by a letter of appointment from the defendants dated 14 June 1984 (the letter of appointment).

4. The terms of the letter of appointment included the following:

a. the plaintiff would be paid a gross monthly salary of $640 and $680 per month in the first and second years respectively;

b. the plaintiff would undergo a 2 year certificate in education programme at the Institute of Education and thereafter serve a bond of 2 years after successful completion of the certificate;

c. after successful completion of the certificate, the plaintiff would be paid a salary of $780 per month as a training officer.

5. The plaintiff pleaded that the following terms were also to be implied into the letter of appointment or to be inferred from the defendants' conduct:

a. that the plaintiff's beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness would be recognised and respected;

b. in consequence the plaintiff would not be required to sing the National Anthem or to recite the national pledge.

6. The plaintiff successfully completed the certificate in education programme at the Institute of Education in 1988 and was confirmed as a training officer by the defendants in January 1988.

7. In breach of the implied terms of the letter of employment, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants commenced proceedings against him and wrongfully dismissed him on or about 1 November 1994. The plaintiff alleged that his dismissal was null and void as it contravened the Constitution of Singapore, violating his right to profess and practise his religion under article 15(1) thereof. He had also been discriminated on the ground of religion and denied equal treatment and protection under the law, in accordance with article 12.

8. In the alternative, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendants were precluded and or estopped from dismissing him because they knew or ought to have known that the plaintiff's religious beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness did not permit him to sing the National Anthem and or to recite the national pledge. The plaintiff particularised the defendants' knowledge as follows:

a. the plaintiff regularly attended the morning and evening assemblies when required to so do since 1984 and the defendants knew or ought to have known that he did not sing the National Anthem or recite the national pledge;

b. notwithstanding the plaintiff's refusal to sing the National Anthem and recite the national pledge, the defendants proceeded to and did confirm the plaintiff as a training officer in or about January 1988;

c. notwithstanding his refusal to sing the National Anthem and recite the national pledge, the plaintiff successfully crossed the efficiency bar on the basis of his performance and conduct in or about July 1993.

9. By reason of his wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff alleged he had suffered loss of salary and consequential allowances and bonus. He prayed inter alia for a declaration that his dismissal was null and void.

10. In the defence, the defendants contended that it was unnecessary, unreasonable and or against public policy or interest to imply the terms the plaintiff alleged. The defendants averred that it was implied into the plaintiff's terms of employment that he would sing the National Anthem and recite the national pledge as and when required by the defendants.

11. The defendants pleaded disciplinary proceedings were taken against the plaintiff in 1994 before he was dismissed. They set out the following history of events which led to the plaintiff's dismissal:

a. on or about 29 June 1988 a memorandum was circulated by the Director (the Director) of Vocational & Industrial Board the defendants' predecessor in title, to all training managers requiring all staff members and trainees to comply with the new mode for the taking of the national pledge during morning assemblies;

b. on or about 5 July 1990 the training manager of Ang Mo Kio Vocational Institute (subsequently renamed ITE Ang Mo Kio) reported to the Director that the plaintiff had refused to take the national pledge during morning assemblies;

c. on or about 2 January 1991, the Director issued a memorandum to the plaintiff requiring him to take the national pledge during morning assemblies failing which disciplinary proceedings would be taken against the plaintiff;

d. on or about 3 December 1993 at a general staff meeting held at ITE Ang Mo Kio, the training manager inter alia, reminded all staff including the plaintiff, to participate actively during morning assemblies including the singing of the National Anthem and the taking of the national pledge;

e. on or about 7 January 1994, at a meeting with the plaintiff, the Director again advised the plaintiff to take the national pledge failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The plaintiff confirmed he was an active member of the Jehovah's Witnesses' congregation and indicated he would resign from his post;

f. on or about 12 January 1994, the plaintiff changed his mind and wrote to the Director to say he would not resign;

g. on or about 14 January 1994, the Director again advised the plaintiff to take the national pledge during morning assemblies;

h. on or about 27 January 1994 the Director instructed the training manager of ITE Ang Mo Kio to ensure that the plaintiff complied with the Director's instructions on the taking of the national pledge during morning assemblies and to report to the Director in the event of non compliance;

i. the training manager of ITE Ang Mo Kio reported to the Director on or about 26 February 1994 of three (3) instances of non-compliance by the plaintiff with the Director's instructions;

j. a letter containing three (3) charges were issued to the plaintiff on 6 April 1994 to which the plaintiff gave a statement on 19 April 1994 admitting he had refused and would continue to refuse, to sing the National Anthem and take the national pledge;

k. a Committee of Inquiry (COI) was appointed by the Establishment Committee of ITE to inquire into the matter at which hearing the plaintiff was represented by two (2) counsel. At the inquiry, the plaintiff admitted to the charges but also indicated he was willing to swear the oath of allegiance as contained in the Constitution;

l. the Establishment Committee subsequently decided to, and did dismiss the plaintiff from the defendants' services with effect from 1 November 1994.

12. The defendants denied they knew that the plaintiff had refused to sing the National Anthem and or to take the national pledge when they confirmed his appointment in 1988. This fact was only made known to the defendants by the training manager of ITE Ang Mo Kio on 5 July 1990. This fact was also not brought to the attention of the approving authority when the plaintiff was considered for the crossing of the efficiency bar in July 1993.

13. I will not refer specifically to the Reply filed by the plaintiff to the Defence as it essentially reiterated what had been pleaded in the statement of claim and which I have already set out.

14. In an earlier application in summons in chambers No. 6365 of 1996 (the earlier application) for discovery of additional documents from the defendants which documents he said were relevant to his case, the plaintiff had filed an affidavit where he deposed that the defendants' solicitors had by their letter dated 19 January 1995 advised his solicitors that the defendants would not release a copy of the confidential report of the COI to him. On 3 September 1996, the plaintiff said his solicitors wrote to the defendants' solicitors to request for disclosure of documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff and which led to his dismissal; there was no response from the defendants' solicitors to his solicitors' request.

15. The plaintiff had in the earlier application, requested for disclosure of other documents including documents which related to his 1984 interview by the defendants. He deposed that such documents were relevant as they would establish his case that the defendants knew he was a Jehovah's Witness at the time he was employed and as a necessary corollary, it must have been known to the defendants that he could not sing the National Anthem.

16. The defendants appealed against the orders made on the earlier application by the court below, touching on whether they had documents relating to:

a) the interviews they conducted with the plaintiff in 1984;

b) his confirmation as a training officer in 1988 and,

c) the record of proceedings and the report of, the COI convened against the plaintiff and which led...