CLAIM FAILS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 210, 17 June 1933, Page 3

CLAIM FAILS

SUIT AGAINST THE CROWN.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

(Per Press Association). AUCKLAND, June 16. Jn the Supreme Court to-day Harold Barnes, formerly a draughtsman in the Lands and Survey Department, claimed £44 17s from the Crown, alleging wrongful dismissal. The suppliant said that last. July he received notice of transfer to New Plymouth, and early in August he" was luiu taut n ne uiu nut rejjorc at i\e\t iijuiouuiL by August ii) uti would ue uisinisseu irom uie service. P-Q cud auv iepo.it anu w as dismissed, rxn alleged unit n.is dismissal was emorceo i it wciuLion ox ins rights as a puoiiu servant. tue deleuce denied dismissal. it saiu chat JDarues voluntarily terminated nis engagement, and contended mat li lie was dismissed it was justinu bie ivxr Justice Reed asked what was the amount oi Barnes' salary, and counsel replied time it was JC3 »s. id a week tor self, wile'and two children. The suppliant, in evidence, said he considered it was impossible to transfer on his salary. The Commissioner's Evidence. Paul Vcrschaii'clt, Public Service Commissioner, gave evidence that lie had Barnes' letters placed before him. tie did not think that they were sufncient to justify any alteration in Ins decision. Jhe instructions for Jtfarnes' transfer came from him.

Mi Gray (.for Barnes): Why was he suddenly, out of all these numbers, selected to go to New Plymouth:'' Witness: l<or a very good reason. Do you feel free to express it:"—No, I do not. Was it a political reason!' —No, it was not. Witness said he had no doubt that Barnes dismissed himself, and iso he did not send on his appeal to the Appeal Board. His Honor asked if witness claimed privilege in regard to stating his reasons for the transfer. Witness said he did. He added that it was on account of Barnes' attitude not only in this particular matter, but in other cases. The service could not be carried on, he said, if it had to wait while men decided whether they would accept a transfer or not. His Honor said it would bo impossible to .run the service if civil servants had the right to 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 Honor said the matter was obvious, in effect, the position taken up by the suppliant was that on his present salary he could not ami would not go to 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. The answer was contained in the 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 the 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.

"Would be Chaotic." "It is obvious," said his Honor, '■that the condition of the Civil Service would bo chaotic if such were not the. case. If the Commissioner adheres to his opinion that a transfer should take place and a civil, servant 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, ho judgment for the respondent."