Re Yap Lack Tee George

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1991
• Date: 10 July 1991
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 80 of 1990
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Yap Lack Tee George

[1991] SGHC 96

L P Thean J

Originating Motion No 80 of 1990

High Court

Administrative Law–Disciplinary proceedings–Whether procedural steps complied with–Disciplinary tribunals–Difference in functions and competences of Committee of Inquiry and the Staff Committee–Judicial review–Ambit–Whether High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals would interfere merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence

The applicant, Yap, a principal clerk with the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (“Telecoms”), had allegedly taken coins which he was not entitled to from a jackpot machine in the main Telecoms building (“Comcentre”) multi-purpose hall where he worked, and to effect this had allegedly opened the jackpot machine without having in his presence a witness. An earlier police inquiry had resulted in the police deciding to drop the charge of theft against the applicant. Disciplinary proceedings under reg 4 of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1983 (GN No S 205/1983) (the “Regulations”) were nevertheless instituted against Yap, and two charges pertaining to the conduct above were preferred against him. Pursuant to reg 6 (3), a committee of inquiry was appointed to inquire into the matter and to report to the Telecoms Staff Committee. The Committee of Inquiry heard evidence from witnesses and after deliberating and analysing the material evidence in some depth, found the case doubtful as there were inconsistent testimonies and unconvincing evidence. The committee therefore recommended to the Staff Committee that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the applicant. The Staff Committee considered the report of the Committee of Inquiry and, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry, dismissed the applicant from service pursuant to reg 6 (1). The question before the court was whether the Staff Committee was entitled to come to its own conclusion that the applicant was unfit for service notwithstanding the Committee of Inquiry's conclusion. Yap applied for certiorari to quash the Telecoms' decision and an order of mandamus directing that he be reinstated in the service of Telecoms.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The procedural steps in the scheme of disciplinary proceedings provided in regs 4, 5 and 6 of the Regulations had been duly complied with by Telecoms: at [18].

(2) The Committee of Inquiry and the Staff Committee each had different functions. The Committee of Inquiry was to investigate into the charges preferred against Yap and to report to the Staff Committee, which it did. Regulation 4 (4) expressly provided that the Committee of Inquiry was not a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The Staff Committee was to consider the report and determine whether the officer in question should be dismissed, reduced in rank, downgraded, or whether some other punishment should be imposed. The Staff Committee was not bound to follow the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations. It was entitled on a review of the report of the Inquiry Committee to come to the decision which it did: at [19].

(3) There was evidence discussed in the report of the Committee of Inquiry which supported the decision of the Staff Committee. It could not be argued that the Staff Committee had come to a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable committee would ever have come to. Furthermore, it could not be argued that the Staff Committee's decision should be overturned by the court on the basis that there was insufficient evidence for the Staff Committee to found its conclusion; the High Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals will not interfere merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence: at [19] to [20].

Heng Kai Kok v AG [1985-1986] SLR (R) 922; [1986] SLR 408 (folld)

Jacob v AG [1968-1970] SLR (R) 694; [1969-1971] SLR 364 (folld)

Wong Kim Sang v AG [1981-1982] SLR (R) 295; [1982-1983] SLR 219 (folld)

Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1983 (GN NoS 205/1983)regs 4, 5,6

Salem Ibrahim and Dedar Singh Gill (Harry Elias & Partners) for the applicant

Singa Retnam and G Asokan (Singa Retnam & Fang) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

L P Thean J

1 By this motion, the applicant, George Yap Lack Tee (“the applicant”), applied for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore dated 13 November 1989 and an order of mandamus directing that he be reinstated in the service of the authority.

2 The material facts that give rise to the present application are as follows. The applicant was at the material time a principal clerk in the employ of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (“Telecoms”) and had more than 31 years of service. He was attached to the recreation wing of the Telecoms, and his duties included supervision of the Telecoms Recreation Centre (“Telerec”) at the main Telecoms building called “Comcentre”. In the Comcentre, there is a multi-purpose hall in which there is a room which houses two jackpot machines. His duties included the handling of cash and also attendance on the jackpot machines when they were in a state of malfunction commonly called “tilt”.

3 On 18 April 1988, a police report was made by Yeo Guek Leng Helen, an administrative officer of Telecoms, on the basis of the information of one Susila Nadarajah who was a clerk at the Telerec, that between 5.00 and 5.20pm on 12 April 1988, the applicant stole money from one of the jackpot machines in the Telerec. Consequently, the applicant was interviewed by the police; also interviewed were Susila Nadarajah, Ahmad Yahaya, Aziz bin Jabal and Yeo Guek Leng Helen, all of Telecoms. The police interviewed the applicant again in October 1988 and subsequently decided to drop the charge of theft against the applicant.

4 However, on 20 December 1988, the applicant received a letter from the general manager of Telecoms stating that disciplinary proceedings in accordance with reg 4 of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1983, had been instituted against him and three charges were framed as set out in the letter. These charges were subsequently amended and only two charges were preferred against the applicant, which were as follows:

First, that you, George Yap Lack Tee, a principal clerk of the Telecommunication [Authority] of Singapore, are charged that you did on or about 12 April 1988 between...