Wong Keng Sam and Others v Pritam Singh Brar

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtFederal Court (Singapore)
JudgeJ W D Ambrose J
Judgment Date10 August 1968
Neutral Citation[1968] SGFC 10
Citation[1968] SGFC 10
SubjectArticles 75(1) and 80(2) Constitution of Singapore,Article 135(2) Constitution of Malaysia,Whether breach or non-compliance gives rise to legal right to redress in a court of law,Constitutional Law,Public service commission,Whether the rules or sub-rules in the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964 are mandatory or directory,Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964,Public service,Whether Public Service Commission entitled to require committee of inquiry to hear further evidence,Disciplinary proceedings
Publication Date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselHo Thian Cheh (Senior State Counsel)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No Y51 of 1967
Date10 August 1968
Defendant CounselSK Lee (SK Lee & Co)

This is an appeal from the decision of FA Chua J in chambers in an application for an interlocutory injunction. The relevant facts are these. The plaintiff is a public officer holding the rank of assistant superintendent of Police in the Police Service in Singapore. The defendants are members of a committee of inquiry (hereafter referred to as the said committee) appointed by the Public Service Commission under r 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964 to inquire into certain charges preferred against the plaintiff.

The said committee inquired into the charges on various dates between the 1 February and 16 February 1967.

On 13 June 1967 the Public Service Commission addressed a letter to the first defendant as chairman of the said committee, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

The commission has directed that the full facts of the case be established and that in particular the committee call and hear Mr Ong Kim Boon Commandant of the Police Training School.



In pursuance of that direction the said committee directed the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior and Defence to inform the plaintiff that the said committee had decided to hear further evidence and to be present at the Beach Road Camp on 3 July 1967 when the said committee would meet to fix suitable dates acceptable to all parties for hearing further evidence.

The plaintiff through his solicitor by letter dated 26 June 1967 objected to such further proceedings but nevertheless the plaintiff and his solicitor appeared before the said committee on 3 July and again objected to such further proceedings. The said committee overruled the objections and fixed 29 and 30 September 1967 for the hearing of further evidence.

The plaintiff on 9 September 1967 commenced proceedings by a writ of summons in the High Court of Singapore against the defendants who are the members of the said committee claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the first, second and third defendants who purport to be respectively the chairman and members of the committee of inquiry appointed by the Public Service Commission to inquire into charges preferred against the plaintiff ceased to hold such offices after 4 March 1967; and/or alternatively;

(b) A declaration that the decision made by the defendants as conveyed to the plaintiff in a letter addressed to the plaintiff, and dated 26 June 1967 to hear further evidence in the inquiry concerning the plaintiff and/or any steps taken in purported furtherance of the said inquiry were illegal, void, inoperative, of no effect and/or ultra vires the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964;

(c) An injunction to restrain the defendants from hearing further evidence in the aforesaid inquiry on 29 and 30 September 1967 or on any other day and/or taking any steps in purported furtherance of the said inquiry.



The plaintiff then took out the present application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants who are the three members of the committee of inquiry appointed by the Public Service Commission of Singapore to inquire into charges preferred against the plaintiff to restrain them from hearing further evidence in the said inquiry on 29 and 30 September or any other day and/or taking any steps in purported furtherance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Leong Kum Fatt v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 March 1984
    ...for the defendant. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (folld) Wong Keng Sam v Pritam Singh Brar [1968-1970] SLR (R) 221; [1965-1968] SLR 316 (folld) Wong Kim Sang v AG [1981-1982] SLR (R) 295; [1982-1983] SLR 219 (folld) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore......
  • Leong Kum Fatt v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 25 April 1985
    ...the respondent. Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 (folld) O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 (refd) Wong Keng Sam v Pritam Singh Brar [1968-1970] SLR (R) 221; [1965-1968] SLR 316 (folld) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint)Art 110 (3) (consd) Police Force Act (Cap 78, 1970......
  • Ling How Doong v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 September 1968
    ...Pradesh v S Sree Rama RaoAIR 1963 SC 1723 (folld) State of Assam v BimalAIR 1963 SC 1612 (refd) Wong Keng Sam v Pritam Singh Brar [1968-1970] SLR (R) 221 (folld) Police Force Ordinance1958 (No 32 of 1958)s 28 (2) (consd);s 27 Police Regulations1959 (GN No S 238/1959)regs 7, 8 Republic of Si......

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