Wong Kim Sang and Another v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T Kulasekaram J
• Judgment Date: 07 January 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGHC 1
• Docket Number: Suit No 3452 of 1978
• Date: 07 January 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1982
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam)
• Citation: [1982] SGHC 1
• Defendant Counsel: Chao Hick Tin (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court,Public authority,regs 3 & 4 Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970,Supervision not review,Court only to see if tribunal made authorized inquiry according to natural justice,ss 27 & 28A Police Force Act (Cap 78),Subsequent dismissal by Public Service Commission,Whether wrongful,Judicial review,Dismissal of subordinate police officers,art 135(2) Federal Constitution,Disciplinary charges made against them,Committee of Inquiry found that charges not proved,Police,Administrative Law,Jurisdiction over inferior tribunals

The plaintiffs in this action seek three declarations on different grounds each to the ultimate effect that their dismissal from the Singapore Police Force (the said Force) was illegal, void and inoperative, and in the alternative, they claim damages for wrongful dismissal.

The facts and circumstances leading to the two plaintiffs` dismissal from the said Force are as follows.

The first plaintiff joined the said Force in or about 12 March 1963 as a detective police constable and was promoted to the rank of detective police corporal in March 1964 and to the rank of detective police sergeant in October 1974 and was at all material times holding this rank in the said Force and was attached to the Gambling Suppression Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department of the said Force.

The second plaintiff joined the said Force as a recruit on 12 August 1963 and was appointed, on three years` probation, as a police constable with effect from 13 August 1963 and was promoted to the rank of detective police constable on 15 September 1971. At all material times he, as a detective police constable, was also attached to the Gambling Suppression Branch of the CID of the said Force.

At all material times the plaintiffs` service with the said Force were subject to and governed by the Police Force Act (Cap 78) (the Act), the Police Regulations, Police General Orders, Standing Orders, Force Orders made under the Act and Instruction Manuals and other Regulations order or direction having the force of law made expressly applicable to members of the said Force.

While both the plaintiffs were attached to the Gambling Suppression Branch of the CID one of their duties was to conduct raids on premises where, it was suspected, that gambling activities were taking place.

On 5 March 1977 the first plaintiff was detailed to conduct a number of such raids and for this purpose he was armed with the necessary search warrants. On that day he took with him the second plaintiff to assist him on these raids. One of the premises to be raided on that morning was No 46B Holy Innocents Lane, Singapore. They were driven to this place in a police van. They arrived at the premises at 11.30am.

The premises in question was occupied by Mdm Chia who lived there with her son Lee Boon Keng and his family.

During, the raid betting slips were found on the premises. Chia Yak Moy an adopted son of Mdm Chia was arrested and taken to Paya Lebar Police Station. The next day he was produced in the magistrate`s court where he pleaded guilty to a charge of being in possession of betting slips and was fined $60.

Matters rested there until the first plaintiff was informed by letter dated 13 January 1978 addressed to him from the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) that disciplinary proceedings under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 (the Regulations) had been commenced against him on two charges therein. The relevant and material portions of that letter is 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 1930 on the following charge:

`You, Wong Kim Sang Detective Sergeant 876 attached to the Gambling Suppression Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Singapore Police Force are charged:

(1) That you, on or about 5 March 1977 at about 11.30am at No 46B Holy Innocents Lane, Singapore, did demand and accept or connived with Ling Hing Hoo. DPC872 in demanding and accepting a gratification of $1,200 from a member of the public, one Chia Yak Moy, as an inducement for not taking action against one Lee Boon Keng under the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 96).

(2) That you, on or about 5 March 1977 at about 11.30am at No 46B Holy Innocents Lane, Singapore, did prevent the proper administration of justice by putting one Chia Yak Moy under arrest and subsequently charging him for an offence under the Common Gaming Houses Act when you knew that the real culprit was one Lee Boon Keng.`

2 ...

(3) In accordance with para (2) of reg 4 of the said Regulations, you are requested to state in writing on or before the expiry of seven working days from the date of receipt of this letter any representations you may wish to make to exculpate yourself from the charge referred to above.

(4) For your information, upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and in accordance with the merits of the case, the Public Service Commission is authorized by sub-s (2) of s 28A of the Police Force Act to impose upon you any of the punishments prescribed in s 27 or 28 of the Act, whichever is appropriate; the Commission may also require your dismissal or retirement from the Police Force as it deems appropriate.

(5) Please acknowledge receipt of the original of this letter on the duplicate copy attached which should be returned to me without delay.

The second plaintiff too received a similar letter dated 13 January 1978 almost on identical terms informing that disciplinary proceedings had also been commenced against him on the corresponding two charges and that letter is at pp B4-5 of the agreed bundle of documents.

In response to para 3 of the said letter each of plaintiffs submitted their exculpatory statement by letters dated 19 January 1978 wherein each of them denied the two charges preferred against each of them.

These letters are exhibited as the documents B7 and 8 of the agreed bundle.

The Public Service Commission (the PSC) were not satisfied with these exculpatory statements of the two plaintiffs and they therefore appointed a Committee of Inquiry (the Committee) under reg 4(3) of the Regulations.

The Chairman of the Committee wrote to the first plaintiff on 16 February 1978 informing him about the appointment of the Committee by the PSC under reg 4(3) of the Regulations and that the Committee will commence its inquiry into his case and I quote in full this letter.

Mr Wong Kim Sang

Detective Sergeant 876

Gambling Suppression Branch Criminal Investigation Department

Singapore Police Force

Ministry of Home Affairs Republic of Singapore.

Through Commissioner of Police

Dear Sir,

I refer to the letter MHA 0248/72 Pt A(76) dated 13 January 1978 from the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) informing you that your dismissal from the service under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 is contemplated and your letter of 19 January 1978.

2 I am to inform you that the Public Service Commission has appointed a Committee of Inquiry under reg 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 to inquire into the disciplinary charges made against you. The Committee of Inquiry comprises:

Chairman Mr Chia Kee Koon

Administrative Assistant

Ministry of Home Affairs.

Member Mr Henry WT Chan

Geotechnique Pte Ltd

14, Third Chin Bee Road,

Singapore 22.

Member Mr Yeo Cheng Kim

Executive Officer

Immigration Department.

The Committee will commence inquiry into your case shortly and you will be informed of the venue, date and time of the inquiry in due course.

(3) Under reg 4 of the Public Service Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1970 you are permitted:

a to be represented by an advocate and solicitor or by another public officer who need not be a confirmed officer and who shall not be senior in rank to a member of the Committee or to the officer nominated by the Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) to present the evidence on behalf of the Government;

b to cross-examine the witness;

c to give evidence on your own behalf; and

d to have such witnesses as you may wish to call on your behalf.

4 Please inform me not later than 14 days from the date of receipt of this letter:

a whether you wish to be represented at the inquiry and if so, the name of the advocate and solicitor or the name and rank of the public officer who will represent you in order to ensure that your representative will not be disqualified; and

b the names, occupations and addresses of any witnesses that you may wish to call to testify or produce evidence before the Committee. You are to make your own arrangements for your witnesses to be present at the inquiry.

5 If you wish to tender any documentary evidence, you are required to provide me with four copies of each of the documents at a reasonable time before such documents may be used as evidence.

(6) Please acknowledge receipt of this letter on the duplicate copy attached which should be returned to me immediately.

Yours faithfully,

Sgd CHIA KEE KOON

Chairman,

Committee of Inquiry

A similar letter almost in identical terms was also written by the Chairman of the Committee to the second plaintiff on the same date.

Eventually the Committee held its inquiry into the two charges against each of the two plaintiffs respectively, in the presence of the two plaintiffs and their legal adviser (one legal adviser represented both the plaintiffs) on 24 and 27 April 1978, 5 and 9 May when it concluded its inquiry.

During this inquiry after all the evidence had been led by the state counsel representing the attorney general on the two charges against the two plaintiffs respectively, the two plaintiffs gave their evidence before the Committee in their defence on the two charges. At the end of the inquiry, the Chairman of the committee invited the plaintiffs if they had anything to say in mitigation of punishment if they should be found guilty on both or any of the charges by the PSC. The Chairman of the Committee indicated that whatever they said would be taken down...