RIGHT OF DISMISSAL

Chronicle (Levin), 30 July 1949, Page 5

RIGHT OF DISMISSAL

Prp.ssi Association)

An Important Decision On Public Service *

(Per

WELLINGTON, July 29. Holding- that there may be cases in which political £opinions and associar tions might have an influenee upon the efficiencv of the Public Service. the action brought by Gilbert Maxiniillian Devnzer, civil servant, against the ' Public Rervice Commissiqjiers has beep disftiissed by Mr. Justice Northcroft in the Rnpreme Court. I Devnzer sought reinstatement to his post of technician in the Department of Rcientific and Tndustrial Research following his transfer last year to a J position as clerk in the he^ad office of the Rocial Reeurity Department. He , claimed that he was transferred aftqr an interAriew with George Thomas Bolt, a member of the commission. who asked liim whether he was a Communist. Dcynzer declined to answer, giving his vieAv that public servants were entitled to their oAvn private political beliefs. For Devnzer, Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared Avith Mr. Tv. IHatthews and defendants were represented by Mr. H. E. Fvans, K.C., Solicitor-General, and with him Mr. A. E. Currie of the Crown Law Office. "The substantial case made by plaintiff was that defendants acted judici- > ally and not aclministratiA7ely, that his transfer was punitiA-e and not made in the interests of efficieney," stated his Ilonour in his judgment. "Tt was admitted that if it AA-as a routirie transfer from one department to another the Court had no power to interfere. It was submitted that the Commission had afted judicially and that an inquiry sliould haA-p been held in strict complianco Avith the terms of the Public Service Act. "The department in which plaintifif was emploA-ed is one in which the lovaltv and discretion of its components cannot be in doubt, " states the jndsrment. "Even the existence of snch j doubt about an offieer may make for inefficiency in many ways. Reniors and ■ otliers in Ihe department may be disI trustful and maintain -a reseiwe towards liim prejudicial to that free and candid intercourse neeessary in their work.

"Other and equallv obvious disadA'antages may result from the presenee of such a person in such a department. 1 The holding of opinions giving rise to doubt are not matters upon which diseiplinai'A' action could be taken unless they deA-elop into acts of misconduct. At the same time if doubt about an individual justifies fears for the efficiont Avork of a department it is justified. and T think it is required by the Act to take appropriate action to prevent the inefficiency it fears. I "Cnunsel for plaintiff "had argued that the scheme of the statute was to ! eliminate political considerations from the employment of public servants and that the action of the Commission was influeneed by such considerations. The j general effect of the Act is to plaee the j control of the Public Service in a nori:' political commission. I do not find in it anv language forbidding the Commission to have regard to the political affiliations of its members. No doubt the Commission AA-ould not ordinarilv concern itself with the politics of public servants, its concern being efficiencv and economy. Were it to be officious in this Avay then the legislature might find | it necessarv to intervene Avith the pre- I , eise definition of its functions and j l poAvers in such matters. There mav. I hoAA'eA'er, be cases where politics and 1 associations have a definite influenee npon efficiencv. ' ' As an illnstration his Honour suggested that if in 1939 a New Zealand ci\'il ser\-ant had proelaimed himself a fascist AA'hile there Avas a state of international tensinn the Commission might ha\'e had to take action to prevent him from endangering the efficiencv of the serA'ice. It would not have required to wait for an act of treason. Such a person if dismissed or transferred would not ha\Te just cause to complain that he was being penalised because of his politics. A contract of serAdce is not one of unilateral obligation, A servant owes a duty of loyalty to his employers' interests, and if he develops opinions or associations, whether political or otherwise, which do or might endanger the interest of his employer then he cannot complain if his employer takes steps by way of dismissal or transfer to other work so as to abate the danger. A public servant has no absolute right to a continuance of emploA'menr in that service, nor is the Public Service bound to consider onlv the interests of 'those employed in the service. On the contrary, the serA'ice is established and maintained in the public interest, and if fhe presenee in it of one of its- offieers is though t by those responsible for the service to be prejudicial to the public interest tlien it is clearelv their duty to remoA7e the prejudice by dismissal or by transfer to an innocuons position. ! "It would be a strange result were the statutory proA'isions relating to tne Publie Service to be read as preventing the Commission from taking the same steps for the proteetion of the public interest as are open to an\* private emplorer in the proteetion of his interests," concluded his Honour. "I do not so read them, and T think the action taken bv the Commission AA'as proper and within its statutory authority. No case has been made justifying interference by this court.."