A CIVIL SERVANT'S DISMISSAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 1 September 1909, Page 15

A CIVIL SERVANT'S DISMISSAL.

INTERESTING LEGAL DECISION. WELLINGTON, August ksU. Judgment was given by sslv Justice Cooper to-day in a question of inuctn importance, -especially to members of the civii service. & conoerntsd the cate of Arthur Broad Reynolds, an officer of the civil service in tne Customs Department for 25 years. On the 16th June, 19Q9, the Coliector of Customs, Wtediington, charged J&eynolds with bsdng afceent without leave, with insobriety, and with disobedience of orders, 'and suspended him i from office. On the 6th July the \ Governor-in-Council appointed Messrs J. I H. Hutiton and W. Bowles a board of in- ' juiry into the truth of the charges against . Reynolds. . The plaintiff, Reynolds o-er cetved notice Auckland about^hie^'lOt^ July to attend the inquiry, Efe was "then' : | suffering from ill-heaith. He<jpro&eededj I to. Wellington, but, owing to ill-health, be was totally onfit to appear at tlie -mguiry, and - returned „ to, Auckland He ■ m^iftieted'-Ms' solicitor to appear on nis" behalf. On the 14*h July 4he sofictor.ap- ; peered before the board, produced his" instructions, informed the members of the board of his personal knowledge of the inability of the pktinitiff to appear, and produced a medical certificate of the plaintiff's ill-health. The board declined to hear the solicitor, or to allow him to conduct any defence on behalf of the plaintiff, or to adjourn tihe inquiry, bofc proceeded •to hear the charges in the absence of the plaintiff, ahd to report to the Governor. Snch was the case set | pot in • the statement of claim, and reviewed by his Honor in^ judgment. On behalf of Reynolds a motion for writs of prohibition, injunction, and certiarari were put before bis Honor. The Attorney- ! general was coupled with ,J. A. Button and W. Bowles as defendants. The plaintiff asked that the proceedings at the inquiry might be declared vancelled and set aside, as illegal, null, and void, and - tibat the plaintiff's status might be declared to be unaffected, on the ground that the defendants had no jurisdiction. . The. grounds were that the defendants improperly refused to hear the plaintiff's solicitor, and that the plaintiff, sufficiently excused himself for noa-attendance at the inanity., 'Bis "Honor's judgment- was exhaustive. He cited many cases in point, and -finally .decided that, in the first place, no J^rit of injunction coald be. ordered to' issue. ' The board was " Fuqctps trf&cie " t on' *tiie Isth July, j and proceedings weire. only commenced on| the 20th. Ip was also clear that the court had no power to interfere with the suspension of the plaintiff. The .question really was : Could the court intervene by directing a writ of certiorari, so that it might inquire into the matiier? It was necessary to examine the provisions of the Civil Service Act first. His Honor"* quoted sections 15 and 18 of " The Civil Service Act, 1908," and expressed the opinion that the defendants had no power to make any order or determination. They were only authorised to express an opinion, and to report that opinion to the Gov«rnor-in-Cooncil. Before a writ of certiorari could be issued the tribunal in , respect of whose proceedings it was ' asked must be shown to have legal power ' to determine the matter concerning which inquiry is made; ''as, in my opinion," t said his Honor, " the necessary element is wanting in this case, I have come to . the conclusion that the court has no ; jurisdiction to order the writ to issue, j There is nothing in the judgments of the High Court which indicates that the proceedings of board can be 'reviewed" * upon a motion for a writ of certiorari. Each of the cases, however, shows, . if the executive authority, acting on. thereport of the board,' dismisses an officer, the officer is in proceedings for damages for wrongful dismissal allowed to show t)liat the inquiry was conducted' by thc^ board in a manner contrary to natural jiastic---- In the view I take of the case, f the merits cannot be considered. The plaintiff must appeal to the executive if he desires to reopen the matter. If the material which he is able to place before the executive discloses that he has not had a fair and proper opportunity to answer the charges of misconduct made against him, then the executive should, in my opinion, give him that opportunity in a fresh inquiry, for it is not only contrary to natural justice that an accused officer should be denied a proper hearing, bat section 18 requires that the accusations ' shall be fully heard. If the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance witn natural justice and the provisions of the statute, the cases I have last referred to indicate that the officer, if discharged, may reopen the matter in appropriate proceedings for wrongful dismissal. 1 re- j , peat that I cannot consider the merits of j the case, and nothing that I have said j must be taken to be any indication that, j in my opinion, the plaintiff has or has not had a full opportunity afforded him by the defendants Hutton and Bowles of meeting and answering the charges cf misconduct made against him. _In my opinion this court has no jurisdiction in these proceedings to investigate the \ matter and the motion must be dis- . missed." I

Mi 1 Craigie, M.P., has received intimation in response to representations that he ha* been making that -new railway workshops are to he built at Timaru for light repairs to tracks and tb* lik*.

- The strange amphibious animal captured by Maoris on Mataora Beach has made good its eacapa from a paddock after one unsocceisfol attempt. It succeeded this time in getting over a fence