Graham Kevi v The Teaching Service Commission Disciplinary Committee [1997] PNGLR 659

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1997] PNGLR 659
• Year: 1997
• Date: 24 April 1997

Full Title: Graham Kevi v The Teaching Service Commission Disciplinary Committee [1997] PNGLR 659

National Court: Lenalia AJ

Judgment Delivered: 24 April 1997

1 Administrative Law—Judicial review—Judicial review of administrative action—Certiorari—Decision of Disciplinary Committee—dismissal of member of Teaching Service—Disciplinary action—Part VII of the Teaching Service Act (Ch71) and Part II of the Teaching Service Regulations

2 Judicial Review—Administrative decision—Dismissal—No opportunity to be heard—Administrative remedies exhausted—Disciplinary considerations—Disciplinary Committee—Duty to act fairly includes duty to give reasons

3 Judicial Review—Natural justice—Disciplinary proceedings resulting in finding of guilt—Proceeding in absence of member concerned—Whether Disciplinary Committees constituted under Part VII Division should proceed in absence of member charged

4 Kekedo v Burns Philp (PNG) Ltd [1988–89] PNGLR 122, Ridge v Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66, Malloch v Aberdeen Corporation [1971] 2 All ER 1278, Gerald Sidney Fallscheer v Iambakey Okuk and The State [1980] PNGLR 101, Iambakey Okuk and The State v Gerald Sidney Fallscheer [1980] PNGLR 274, Godfrey Niggints v Henry Tokam [1993] PNGLR 66 and Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175 referred to

Held:

(1) As a matter of statutory construction of the Teaching Service and Teaching Service Regulations (Ch71), the Disciplinary Committee constituted as an appellate Board is required by law to give reasons for dismissal and an opportunity to be heard before the member was dismissed Ridge v Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66 and Iambakey Okuk and The State v Gerald Sidney Fallscheer [1980] PNGLR 274 applied

(2) Where the Teaching Service Commission Disciplinary Committee acts on recommendation by the National Education Board Disciplinary Committee resulting in a finding of guilt, the Disciplinary Committee must give reasons at the time the member is informed of the decision

(3) Although there may not be any specific requirement under the Teaching Service and Teaching Service Regulation for the Disciplinary Committees to give reasons, it is a requirement of the principle of natural justice to give reasons

(4) The Defendant erred in law by failing to give reasons for finding the plaintiff guilty of a serious disciplinary charge

(5) The Defendant erred in law when it adopted the decision to dismiss the plaintiff when the charge was not supported by any evidence

___________________________

Lenalia AJ: The Plaintiff was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 28 June 1996. The matter has since been adjourned from time to time until it came up before me on 11 April for hearing.

The Plaintiff applies for judicial review pursuant to O16 of the National Court Rules 1983 (Ch38) asking the Court to remove to it and quash a determination of the National Education Board Disciplinary Committee made on 18 August 1995 which decision was subsequently confirmed by Defendant dismissing the plaintiff from his teaching career as a lecturer at the Mount Hagen Technical College in the Western Highlands Province. Disciplinary Committees are constituted under PART VII—Division 1 of the Teaching Service Act and PART II Divisions 1 and 2 of the Teaching Service Regulations (Ch71). The plaintiff was charged with a serious charge pursuant to s83(1) of the Act and s19 of the Regulations on the 18 August 1995 and the charge was served on the plaintiff on the 1st of September the following month. This was a serious disciplinary charge. The nature of the charge were that the plaintiff on 22 June 1995 did turn up for work heavily intoxicated with alcoholic liquor and further was unable to teach and thereby neglected his duties. There was a further allegation contained in the charge that the plaintiff had committed similar behaviour on two (2) previous occasions for which the plaintiff was highly reprimanded in 1994.

On receipt of the notice of the charge the plaintiff immediately reacted by sending two written replies to the first Assistant Secretary Special Services, Technical Division—Education Department, in Moresby, (see Ann. "B" and "C" dated 2 and 10 September 1995). In both...