COURT RESERVES DECISION IN TRANSFER APPEAL

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 April 1950, Page 2

COURT RESERVES DECISION IN TRANSFER APPEAL

’ WELLINGTON, March 31 (P.A.). —The Court of Appeal today reserved, its decision in the case in which Gilbert Maximillian Deynzer, of Wellington, a public servant (Messrs W. E. Leicester and N. G. Taylor, Wellington) is appealing against judgment given by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court at Wellington on July 28 last. Deynzer had from October, 1943, until November, 1948, been a member of the staff of the Scientific and Industrial Research Department. On the latter date he was transferred to the Social Security Department, allegedly because, when asked by the Public Service Commission whether he was a Communist, he declined to answer, stating that in his view public servants were entitled to maintain their own counsel on private political views, and that the 'commission was not entitled to ask the question. “Transfer Justified”

Deynzer appealed against the transfer to the Supreme Court, and Mr Justice Northcroft held that the transfer was justified. His .Honor, in his judgment, said, inter alia, that he considered that the commission was justified in transferring an individual to a department where his presence would not impair efficiency, even though it was acknowledged his work was efficient and his conduct good, and though no complaint or charge having been made, he was prevented from having a hearing made under the disciplinary 'sections of the Act. The respondents are Richard Mitchelson Campbell, George Thomas Bolt, and Albert Henry O’Keefe, members, of the Public Service Commission, who are represented by Mr H. E. Evans, K.C., and Mr A. E. Currie, of Wellington. Mr Currie submitted that suspicions of a servant being a bad security risk were sufficient for the commitlisoners to act. : “It is not possible for a court, even in camera, to adjudicate on the reasons for dismissal when national security is involved,” he said. In reply to a question from Mr Justice Gresson, Mr Currie contended that when national security was at stake the Public Service Commissioners could act as they saw fit upon their own views, without being answerable to anyone, even to the courts.

“Bad Security Risk”

Mr Leicester submitted that the respondents’ argument had shown that Deynzer was regarded by them as a'good employee, but, because of suspicions or doubts concerning his Communistic beliefs, he had been transferred as a bad security risk. The Solicitor-General had argued that the efficiency of a department was the important issue. “Supposing,” said Mr Leicester, “there was in a department a servant with an overwhelming passion to get on. He arrived one hour before the other employees, left an hour after them, and never so much as raised his head from his work. One can imagine that this would raise an aura of mistrust or resentment in the department, and the 'commission may have to transfer this employee for the sake of an efficient department. So, if undue emphasis is placed on departmental 'efficiency, all sorts of anomalies may follow.” ■ __