Crown Sued by Civil Servant

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7185, 17 June 1933, Page 7

Crown Sued by Civil Servant

Objected to Transfer CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Last Niglit. Harold Barnes, formerly a draughtsman in the Lands and Survey Department, in the Supreme Court to-day claimed £-14 17s from the Crown, alleging wrongful dismissal. The suppliant said that last July he received notice of his transfer to New Plymouth, and early in August ho was told if he did not report at New Plymouth by August 10 he would bo dismissed from the service. He did not report and was dismissed. Ho alleged that his dismissal was enforced in violation of his rights as a public servant. The defence denied the dismissal and said Barnes had voluntarily terminated his engagement. It was contended if he was dismissed it was justifiable. Mr. Justice Reed asked the amount of Barnes's salary, and counsel replied that it was £3 Ss Id a week for the support of himself, ki3 wife, and two children. The suppliant, in evidence, said he considered it was impossible to transfer on his salary. The Public Service Commissioner, Paul Vorsckaffelt, gave evidence that he had Barnes’ letters placed before him. Ho did not think they were sufficient to justify an alteration in his decision, Instructions for Barnes’ transfer camo from him.

Mr. Cray (for Barnes): “Why was he suddenly out of all these numbers selected to go to New Plymouth?” Witness: “For very good reasons.” “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 Barnes dismissed himself and so lie did not send on his appeal to the Appeal Board. His Honour asked if witness claimed privilege in regard to stating his reasons for the transfer. Witness said he did, and added that it was on account of. Barnes’ attitude not in this particular matter but in other cases. Tho servico could not be carried on, he said, if it had to wait while men decided whether they would accept transfer or not. His Honour said it would be impossible to run the service if civil servants had tho 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 Honour said the matter was obvious. In effect tho position taken up by the suppliant was that on his present reduced salary ho could not and would not go to New Plymouth. If he received a favourable answer to his appeal he would consider whether ne would go or not. On failing to comply with tho final peremptory order to go he was dismissed. Tho question was whether he was wrongfully dismissed. The answer was contained in a proper construction of section 50 of the Public Service Act, 1912. Tho effect of that section was that if in his proper administration of the civil service of which tho Public Servico Commissioner was the sole judge it was desirablo that an officer should be transferred that officer had no alternative but to obey. The Commissioner was made the solo judge of tho sufficiency of any reasons that might bo lodged against tho transfer, and from his decision there was no appeal. “It is obvious,” said his Honour, “that tho condition of tho civil service would bo chaotic if such wore not tho 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 tho act and its amendments havo no bearing upon this particular section which is a disciplinary one and tho basic to the administration of the civil service. There must bo judgment for respondent.’ ;