CLAIM ON CROWN FAILS

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 17 June 1933, Page 6

CLAIM ON CROWN FAILS

DISPUTED DISMISSAL ijS;: . __ TROUBLE OVER TRANSFER. • LANDS DEPARTMENT SERVANT. ■ (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June IG. The Tofusal of a civil servant to be transferred to New Plymouth and. his consequent dismissal "were discussed in i the 'Supreme Court to-uay when Harold Barnes, formerly a daughtsman in the Lands and Survey Department, claimed £44 17s from the Crown, alleging wrongful dismissal. His claim failed, it being shown that the Public Service Commissioner was the sole judge of the sufficiency of any reasons that mightbo lodged against a transfer. iMr Justice Reed said the conditions of the « Civil Service would oe chaotic if such were not the case. 'Suppliant said that last July he received notice of transfer to New Plymouth and early in August he was told that if he did not report at New Plymouth by August 10 he would be dismissed from the service. He did not report and was dismissed. He alleged that his dismissal was enforced in violation of his rights as a puoiie servant. The defence denied -the dismissal, said that Barnes voluntarily terminated his engagement, and contended that if he was dismissed It was justifiable. t Mr Justice Reed asked the amount of Barnes* salary, and counsel replied that it was £3,Bs Id a week for himself, wife and two children. 'Suppliant, in evidence, said he considered it impossible to transfer on his salary. APPEAL NOT SENT ON. The Public Service Commissioner, Mr Raul Verschaffelt, gave evidence that he had Barnes’ letters placed before him. He did not think they were sufficient to justify alteration in his decision. Instructions for Barnes’ transfer came from him. Mr Gray (counsel for Barnes): "Why was he suddenly, out of all these numbers, selected to go to New Plymouth? Mr Verschaffelt: Eor a very good reason. Counsel: Do you feel free to express it? Mr Verschaffelt: No, I do not. Counsel: Was it a political reason? Mr Verschaffelt: No, it was not. He had no doubt Barnes dismissed himself, Mr Verschaffelt said, and so he did not send on ms appeal to the appeal board. His Honour asked if Mr Verschaffelt claimed privilege in regard to stating his reasons for the transfer. Mr Verschaffelt said he did. He added that it was on account of Barnes’ attitude not in this particular matter but in other eases. The service could not be carried on, he said, if it had to wait while men decided ■whether they would accept transfer or not. ' . DISCRETION ALLOWED.

His Honour said it would be impossible to run -the service if civil servants had the right of appeal against the commissioner’s order to transfer. Discretion was given absolutely to the commissioner.

Mr Gray said the commissioner’s powers appeared to have been exercised very unreasonably in this case. His Honour said the matter was obvious; in effect the position taken up by suppliant was that on his present reduced salary he could not and would nbt go to New Plymouth. If he received a favourable answer to his appeal he would consider whether he would go or not. On failing to comply with the final peremptory order to go he was dismissed.

The question was whether he was wrongfully dismissed. Tne answer was contained in a proper construction of section 50 of the Public .Service Act, 1912. The effect of that section was that if in the proper administration of the Civil Service, of which the Public Service Commissioner was fine sole judge, it was desirable that an officer should be transferred, that officer had no alternative but to obey. The commissioner was made the sole judge of the sufficiency of any' reasons that might be lodged against a transfer and from his decision there was no appeal. “It is obvious,’’ said his Honour, ‘ ‘ that the condition of the Civil Service would be chaotic if such were not the ease. If the commissioner adheres to his opinion the transfer should take place, and for the civil*servant who refuses to comply the statute provides a .specific penalty, the penalty of dismissal. Against that, in my opinion, no appeal lies. Other sections of the Act and its amendments have no bearing upon this particular section, which is a disciplinary one and basic to the administration of the Civil Service. There, must be judgment for the respondent.”