RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 84, 10 April 1911, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

FINDING IN THE CASE OF C. TRILLO. The finding of the North Island Railway Appeal Board against his dismissal from the Petone Workshops is as under : " The board has beard and considered the evidence of the appellant, who called no witnesses, and ot the departmental witnesses. In its consideration the board is met with the fact that there, has been no investigation on the part of the general manager nor any inquiry held under his direction. A ietter signed by the general managei*, dated 11th October, 1910, states: "Turner C. S. Trillo is written off for refusing to comply with head office instructions.' This the board takes is tantamount to diemissal — the severest punishment which caai be inflicted on a member of the service. The severity of the punishment indicates that the general mamager considered the offence a serious one, and, in the opinion of the board, it is one which ought to have been dealt with by means of an enquiry under Regulation 76. The boa-rd is aware that under Regulation 75 the general manager may investigate and dispose of any charge in such manner as he deems equitable, but, as just stated, in its opinion, the present case was one for an enquiry. But whether tho general manager's investigation or an -enquiry is the correct procedure, certain principles must be observed in each case. The appellant has not been heard either in investigation or in enquiry. (Four authorities are quoted here.) Taking into consideration sections 55 and 56 of the Act in conjunction with Regulations 75 and 76, the board vconsiders that before it can decide the matter of this appeal there must be an enquiry, in which the appellant should be summoned to take part in answer to a charge of ' refusing to comply with head office instructions.' The board therefore respectfully declines jurisdiction in the matter until such enquiry ie made and until an appeal, if any, is made from the decision resulting from the enquiry. The result of this finding is that the appellant is still under suspension."