Public Servant’s Appeal Against Judgment Upholding His Transfer

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23217, 31 March 1950, Page 5

Public Servant’s Appeal Against Judgment Upholding His Transfer

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 30. The Court of Appeal consisting of the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary, Mr. Justice Gresson, and Mr. Justice Hutchison, today commenced the hearing of an appeal by Gilbert Maximillian Deynzer, Wellington, public servant (Mr. W. E. Leicester and Mr. N. G. Taylor, Wellington) against a "judgment given by Mr. Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court, 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 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.

Judge’s Comments

In reasons for his judgment, Mr. Justice Northcroft examined the relevant sections of the Public Service Act, 1912, and amendments and stated (inter alia): “The department in which the plaintiff was employed is one in which loyalty and discretion ot its components cannot be in doubt. Even the existence of such a doubt about an officer may make for inefficiency in many ways. Seniors and. others in the department may be distrustful and maintain reserve towards him prejudicial to that free and candid intercourse necessary in their work. Other and equally obvious disadvantages may result from the presence of such a person in such a department. The holding of opinions or pursuit of a course of conduct giving rises to doubt are not matters upon which disciplinary action could be taken unless they develop into acts of misconduct. At the same time if the commission docs consider its doubt about an individual it justifies fears for the efficient work of a department. It is justified, and I think it is required by the Act, lo take appropriate action to prevent the inefficiency it fears.” The Judge 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 that his work was efficient and his. conduct good and though no complaint or charge having been made. He was prevented from having a hearing 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 bv Mr. H. E. Evans, ICC., and Mr. A. E. Currie, Wellington.