CIVIL SERVANTS ACTION

Grey River Argus, 17 June 1933, Page 5

CIVIL SERVANTS ACTION

FOR WRONGFUL • DISMISSAL Objection to Transfer JUDGMENT lOR RESPONDENT. (!*• r Press Association). AUCKLAND, Jul,- 16 The Public Service Commissioner, Mr Paul V e r.-w ha fie h,t agave evidence that lit* hMr Barn-s’< letters placed, be- . He did Hot think they were suw.'inlL to justif® any alteration in hi« dv<lt. on,. Th® instructions for Barnes to transfer Baine from him. Mr ( 'ray, fur Barnes: ‘ ‘Why was h.- su id'-nly out of all these numbers, selected la go to Xqik’ Plymouth.”’ Witness: For veryjgood reasons. Mr Gray: Do yuuHfeel free to ex--1 Wi-.m Nu. 1 ,|„ Lt. Mr Gray: Was it a apolitical reason/ Witness: No, it wa| not. Witness h:iid he ha'£.no doubt that Barnes dismi.-sed himself, and so ho did i.ut >ciid on his aptfea! to the Ap P<«l Board. * His Honor asked if the witness claim,.l privilege in regard to stating his rea>on< for the transfer. \\ itne-s aid he did. and ad .< I that it was (,ii -account of Barnes’ attitude, not in this particular matt ,, r. but in o.iivr c:t*.The service culd not !?,♦ carried on, i.., .-aid. if it had to wait while men :■ aided win Hut Hoy would accept transfer or wt His Honor said it wuiild be impos sible to run th«_» service if civil ser vants had the right to appeal against the Commissioner’s order to transfer. Discretion was given absolutely 1 • the Commissioner. Mr Gray said that th-: ■ <'ommt.-sion cr ’s powers appeared to h-'vp l><-en ex ercised very unreasonald v in this His Honor s-aid the matter ’•’< ,d, vious. In effect, the position taken up by the suppliant, was that on his present reduced salary he coul-1 not. and would not. go to New Plymouth. L he received a favourable answer to his appeal, he would consider whether he would go or not. On failing to coin ply with the final peremptory order to go, he was dismissed. The question was whether h e was wrongly 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 Servian Commissioner was the sole judge, it was desirable that an officer should be-trans-ferred, that officer had no alternative but to obey. The Commissioner was made sole judge of the sufficiency of any reasons (hat might be lodged against the transfer, an 1 from his decision there was no appeal. ‘‘lt is obvious.” said Hi.- Honor, “that the condition of the civil service would be chaotic, if such were not the case. If the Commissioner adher’s tn his opinion, the transfer should take place, and the civil servant who re fuses to comply with the Statute pro vidc-s specific penalty, the penalty of dismissal. Against that, in my opinion, no appeal lies in other sections of the Act, and its amendments have bearing upon this particular section, which is a disciplinary one, and basic to the administration <d* the civil ser vice. There must be a judgment for the respondent.”