UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21982, 17 June 1933, Page 12

UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM

ACTION AGAINST THE CROWN TRANSFER OF CIVIL SERVANTS (Per United Prijss Association.) - AUCKLAND, June 16. Harold Barnes, formerly a draughtsman in the Lands and Survey Department, to-day, in the Supreme Court, claimed £44 17s from the Crown, alleging wrongful dismissal. The suppliant said that last July he received notice of transfer to New Plymouth, and early in August he was told that if he did not report at New Plymouth by August 10 he would be dismissed from, the service. He did not report, and was dismissed. He alleged that the dismissal was enforced in violation of his rights as a public servant. The defence denied the dismissal, and said that Barnes voluntarily terminated his engagement, and contended that if he were dismissed it was justifiable. Mr Justice Reed asked what was the amount of Barnes’s salary, and counsel said it was £3 8s Id a week for himself and his wife and two children.

The -suppliant, in evidence, said he considered it was impossible to transfer on his salary. The Public Service Commissioner (Paul Verschaffelt) gave evidence that he had had Barnes’s letters placed before him. He did not think 'they were sufficient to justify an alteration in his decision. The instructions for Barnes’s transfer came from him.

Mr Gray (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 them? — No, I do not. Was it a political reason? —No, it was not.

Witness said he had no doubt Barnes dismissed himself, and so he did not send on his appeal to the Appeal Board. His Honor 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’s attitude, not in this particular matter, but in other eases. The service could not he carried on, he said, if it had to wait while rndn decided whether they would accept a transfer or not. His Honor said it would be impossible to run the service if civil servants had the right of 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 Honor said the matter was obvious. In effect, the position taken up by the suppliant was that on his present reduced salary he could not and would not go to New Plymouth. If he received a favourable answer to his appeal he would consider whether he would go or not. On failing to comply with a final peremptory order to go he was dismissed. The question was whether he was wrongfully dismissed. The answer was contained in a 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. Service Commissioner was the sole judge, it was desirable that an officer should be transferred, that officer had no alternative but to obey. The commissioner was made the sole judge of the sufficiency of any reasons that might be lodged against the transfer and from his decision there was no appeal. “ It is obvious,” said his Honor, “ that the condition of the civil service would be chaotic if such were not the case. If the commissioner adheres to the 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 mv opinion, no appeal lies. Other sections of the Act and its amendments have no bearing upon this particular section, which is a disciplinary one and basic to the administration of the civil service. There must be judgment for the respondent.”