Sithambaran v Attorney General

JudgeTan Ah Tah J
Judgment Date12 August 1972
Neutral Citation[1972] SGHC 12
Citation[1972] SGHC 12
Defendant CounselWarren Khoo Leang Huat (State Counsel)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselJB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
Date12 August 1972
Docket NumberSuit No 2251 of 1970
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterDisciplinary proceedings,Sections 4(1) and 54 Police Force Ordinance 1958 (No 32 of 1958),Corporal in Singapore Police Force facing disciplinary inquiry,Regulation 7 Police Regulations 1959,Remedies,Administrative Law,Whether corporal given reasonable opportunity to be heard -Whether Assistant Commissioner of Police having power to dismiss corporal,Administrative powers,Whether corporal given reasonable opportunity to be heard before being dismissed,Article 135(2) Federal Constitution 1963 (No 26 of 1963) (MÂ’sia),Corporal subsequently dismissed from Singapore Police Force,Assistant Commissioner of Police informing corporal in Singapore Police Force of dismissal from Singapore Police Force,Declaration,Whether dismissal ultra vires, null, void and inoperative on ground that corporal not permitted to be represented by agent at disciplinary inquiry,Whether Assistant Commissioner of Police having power to dismiss corporal

The plaintiff joined the Singapore Police Force as a constable on or about 3 May 1954. On 1 August 1960 he was promoted to the rank of lance corporal. Subsequently, on 1 June 1964 he was promoted to the rank of corporal.

On 1 September 1969 the plaintiff was served by sub-inspector Daud with a document containing three charges against him.
The three charges were as follows:

(i) You, V Sithambaran, Cpl 1514 are charged with conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline in that you, on 26 April 1969 at about 2.45pm along Nee Soon Road, Singapore, accepted a present in the shape of money, to wit, $2 from one Goh Kee Yah, in order that you would not make a police report against one Teh Tiang Soy, the driver of motor-van SGA9444 for a traffic offence and you have thereby contravened s 27(1)(c) of the Police Force Ordinance 1958 and punishable under s 27(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance 1958 (No 32 of 1958).

(ii) You, V Sithambaran, Cpl 1514, are charged with disobedience of orders in that you, at about 4.05pm on 26 April 1969 at the Duty Office, Radio Division, when searched were found to be in possession of cash in the amount of $2 contrary to Radio Division Standing Order No 41 para 6(b) and you have thereby committed an offence under s 27(1)(e) of the Police Force Ordinance 1958 and punishable under s 27(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance 1958 (No 32 of 1958).

(iii) You, V Sithambaran, Cpl. 1514, are charged with disobedience of orders in that you as the Crew Commander of patrol car `M-54` which was on patrol between 0710 hours and 1535 hours on 26 April 1969 failed to ensure that proper entries were made in the log-sheet of the said patrol car, contrary to Radio Division Duty Scheme No 8, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 27(1)(h) of the Police Force Ordinance 1958 and punishable under s 27(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance 1958 (No 32 of 1958).



On 19 September 1969 the plaintiff appeared before Mr Koh Lian Wah, a Superintendent of Police, who had been appointed to conduct a disciplinary inquiry regarding the plaintiff`s conduct.
Mr Koh read out the three charges to the plaintiff, who claimed trial on the first and third charges but pleaded guilty to the second charge. According to Mr Koh`s evidence in this case, he postponed the inquiry to 26 September 1969 so that there would be time to call the witnesses and also in order to enable the plaintiff to prepare his case.

Mr Koh duly proceeded with the inquiry which lasted several days.
At the end of the inquiry the plaintiff was found guilty on the first and third charges.

By a letter dated 18 October 1969 sent to the plaintiff by Mr VN Ratna Singam, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, the plaintiff was informed that Mr Koh had recommended that the plaintiff should be dismissed from the Singapore Police Force, that Mr Ratna Singam concurred with the recommendation, that the plaintiff was reduced to the rank of constable and would be dismissed from the force with effect from 20 October 1969.


On 8 October 1970 the plaintiff commenced this action in which he claims a declaration that his purported dismissal from the Singapore Police Force is ultra vires, null, void and inoperative and that he is still a corporal and entitled to be remunerated as such.


The first argument put forward on behalf of the plaintiff is that he was not permitted to be represented by an agent at the inquiry.
According to the plaintiff, when sub-inspector Daud served the document containing the charges on him, he asked sub-inspector Daud whether he could engage a lawyer or ask an Assistant Superintendent of Police to represent him and sub-inspector Daud replied that there were no provisions enabling him to do so and that he would have to answer the charges himself. Sub-inspector Daud has denied that the plaintiff asked him this question. He has stated that no question of representation was raised by the plaintiff. I accept the evidence of sub-inspector Daud on this point. In my opinion the plaintiff was not being truthful when he was giving evidence about his conversation with sub-inspector Daud.

It should be noted that at the inquiry the plaintiff did not ask Mr Koh whether he could be represented by a lawyer.
If he really wished to be represented by counsel that was the most appropriate place in which the request for representation could be made. However the plaintiff admitted that he made no such request.

The law as to legal representation before a domestic tribunal was stated by Lord Denning in Enderby Town Football Club v Football Association [1971] 1 All ER 215 at p 218 as follows:

The case thus raises this important point: is a party who is charged before a domestic tribunal, entitled as of right to be legally represented? Much depends on what the rules say about it. When the rules say nothing, then the party has no absolute right to be legally represented. It is a matter for the discretion of the tribunal. It is master of its own procedure; and, if it, in the proper exercise of its discretion, declines to allow legal representation, the courts will not interfere.



Regulation 7 of the Police Regulations 1959 is silent on the question whether subordinate officers can be represented by anyone at an inquiry.
On the authority of Enderby Town Football Club v Football Association (supra), it is clear that Mr Koh had a discretion whether or not to allow the plaintiff to be represented by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kok Seng Chong v Bukit Turf Club and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 December 1992
    ... ... Roskill LJ denied that there was a general right to legal representation in every type of case. In Maynard v Osmond ,8 the Court of ... In Sithambaran v A-G [1972] 2 MLJ 175 the plaintiff, a policeman, was dismissed from the Singapore Police ... ...
  • Lee Keng Kee v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 November 1980
    ... ... The three Singapore cases are: ... (1) Ling How Doong v A-G [1968] 2 MLJ 253 ; [1969] 1 MLJ 154 , FC (Winslow J) ... (2) Jacob v A-G [1970] 2 MLJ 133 (Wee Chong Jin CJ) ... (3) Sithambaran v A-G [1972-1974] SLR 359 (Tan Ah Tah J) ... The Malaysian case is that of Najar Singh v Government of Malaysia & Anor [1976] 1 MLJ 203 , PC (PC Viscount Dilhorne). I do not think Fernando `scase assists Mr Chao in the issue of whether a second hearing and/or a ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT