clr/1981/1981_3_555.pdf

(1981)1978 and decided to interdict applicant. This decision was communicated to applicant on the same day but he filed no recourse against it. Finally there were preferred against,applicant 26 disciplinary charges and the hearing of the proceedings started on the 18th 5 September, 1979. On the 24th September, 1979, the applicant was.acquitted on charges 17 to 26 after leave was granted to counsel appearing for the Prosecuting Authority to withdraw same. On the 5th October, 1979, counsel representing the applicant addressed a letter to the Public Service Commission asking on his behalf that, because of his acquittal on the said 10 charges, and as he believed that the reasons for which his client had been interdicted had ceased to exist, his interdiction ought to be terminated immediately. 10 The Public Service Commission met on the 24th October, 1979, and after taking into consideration applicant's counsel letter and an advice of the Deputy Attorney-General on the matter, reached the conclusion not to terminate his interdiction before the final determination of the case. This decision was 20 communicated to counsel for the applicant by letter dated the 31st October, 1979 and is the subject of this recourse. Counsel for the respondent contended that the subjudice decision was not of an executory nature but a confirmatory of the previous decision to interdict applicant and as such it 25 could not be challenged by a recourse. Counsel for the applicant submitted thatit is not the decision to interdict him that is challenged by this recourse, but the failure of the respondents to recognise that the applicant's interdiction came to an end, in view of the developments which 30 supervened during the disciplinary proceedings, namely the acquittal of the applicant on 10 out of the26 charges preferred against him. Held, that not every act emanating from an administrative organ can be made the subject of a recourse, but only those 35 which are of an executory nature; that the main element of the concept of an executory act is the direct production of a legal situation concerning the subject and entailing its directexecution 556 15 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 Kyriacou v. Republic by administrative means; that the remaining 16chargespending then against applicant were for offences which are considered to be not only of a nature unbecoming for a civil servant, but, also, punishable by the Criminal Code, i.e. insults, assaults, unlawful possession of firearms and offences against public order; that these charges formed part of the original complaint of the Director-General of the Ministry of Health on which the Public Service Commission based its decision for the interdiction of the applicant; that, therefore, the decision of the Commission, after the letter of counsel for the applicant, not to terminate his interdiction, was not based on any new facts before it, and for this reason, such decision can only be held to be a confirmatory and not an executory act and as suchit cannot bemadethesubject of a recourse(seeEconomides v. TheRepublic

(1980)3C.L.R. 219at pp.223, 224);accordingly the recourse must fail. Application dismissed. Cases referred to: Economides v. The Republic

(1980)3 C.L.R. 219 at pp. 223, 224. Recourse. •Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to terminate applicant's interdiction. C. L. Clerides, for the applicant. A. Papasavvas,Counsel of the Republic, foi the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ. read the following judgment. By the present recouise the applicant prays for a declaialion that the act and/or decision of the respondents, which was commimicated to his 30 counsel by letter dated 31st October, 1979, not to terminate the interdiction imposed on him on the 22nd February, 1978, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The applicant was a permanent member of the Civil Service of the Republic. He heldthepost of Lay Worker inthe Depart35 ment of Medical Services and was posted at St. Charalambos' Home for the Disabled, at Larnaca. As a result of a number of complaints made to the Ministry of Health by inmates of the said Home against the applicant, 557 Demetriades J. Kyriacou v. Republic

(1981)and which complaints related to assaults, indecent assaults committed against female labourers of the Home, as well as toutteringinsultingwordsagainstthepersonofthelatePresident ofthe Republic, theDirector General of the Ministry of Health informed in writing, on the 21&tFebruary, 1978, the President 5 of the Public Service Commission that the Minister of Health had ordered an inquiry into the commission of disciplinary offences by him and submitted that, in view of the seriousness of the complaints and the fact that the applicant wasin charge of the personnel of the Home, he should, in the public interest, 10 be interdicted until the final determination of the case. The relevant legislative provisions on which the General Director of theMinistry of Health had based his abovesvbmission are sections 80 and 84 of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67), which read as follows:- 15 *'S.80If it is reported to the appropriate authority concerned that a public officer may have committed a disciplinary offence the appropriate authority shall forthwith— (

1. a)if the offence is oneof those specified in Part I of the First Schedule, cause a departmental inquiry to be 20 made in such manner as the appropriate authority may direct and proceed as provided in section 81: Provided that, if the appropriate authority is of opinion that, owing to the seriousness of the offence or the circumstances under which it was committed, 25 it should entail a more serious punishment, it may refer the matter to the Commission, in which case it shall proceed under paragraph (b); (
2. b)in any other case, cause an investigation to be made intheprescribed manner andthen proceed asprovided 30 in section 82. Provided that until Regulationsaremadeprescribing the manner of investigation, the Regulations set out in Part I of the Second Schedule apply". "S.84

(1)When an investigation of a disciplinary offence is 35 directed under the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 80 against an officer or on the commencement of a police investigationwiththeobject ofcriminal proceedingsagainst 558 3 C.L.R. Kyriacou v. Republic Demetriades J. him, the Commission may, if public interest so requires, interdict the officer from duty pending the investigation and until the final disposal of the case. 5 10 15 20

(2)Notice of such interdiction shall be given in writing totheofficer assoonaspossibleandtheieuponthepowers, privileges and benefits vested in the officer shall remain in abeyance during the period the interdiction continues: Provided that the Commission shall allow the officer to receive such portion of the emoluments of his office, not being lessthan onehalf, as the Commission may think fit.

(3)Iftheofficer isacquitted orifasaresult oftheinvestigation there is no case against him, the interdiction shall. come to an end and the officer shall be entitled to the full amount of the emoluments which he would have received if he had not been interdicted. If he is found guilty and the punishment is other than dismissal, the officer may be refunded such portion of his emoluments as the Commission may think fit. If the punishment imposed on the officer is dismissal, the officer shall receive no emoluments in respect of the period fiom the date of his conviction to the date of his dismissal". Acting on the aforesaid information, the Public Service Commission, at its meeting dated the 22nd February, 1978, 25 decided to interdict the applicant. Such decision appears in Appendix3 attached to the Opposition in this recourse and reads as follows:- 30 35 "The Director-General, Ministry of Health, by his letter No. Y.Y.407/61/8 of 21.2.1978, informed the Commission that an investigation has been directed with a view to instituting disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Argyros Kyriacou, Lay Worker (St. Haralambos' Home for the Disabled), in the Department of Medical Services, for a number of serious offences allegedly committed by him. In view of the nature of the offences and in order to facilitate the investigation, the Director-General, Ministry of Health, considersitexpedientthat thesaidofficer should be interdicted under the provisions of Article 84

(1)of Law No. 33/67. 559 Demetriades J. Kyriacou v. Republic

(1981)In viewoftheinvestigation that hasbeendirected against Mr. Kyriacou, the Commission decided that it is in the public interest that the officer in question should cease to exercise the powers and functions of his Office pending the investigation and until the final disposal of the case. 5 The Commission further decided that Mr. Kyriacou should beinterdicted from theexerciseofthepowersand functions of his Office as from the 23rd February,

1. During the period of his interdiction, Mr. Kyriacou will be allowed to receive one half of his emoluments". 10 The Public Service Commission communicated their decision to the applicant by letter, on the same day (see Appendix 4), against which the applicant had filed no recourse. Finallytherewerepreferred againsthim 26disciplinarycharges andthehearingoftheproceedingsstartedonthe 18thSeptember, 15
2. Onthe24thSeptember, 1979,theapplicantwasacquitted on charges 17to26after leavewasgranted tocounsel appearing for the Prosecuting Authority to withdraw same. On the 5th October, 1979,counsel representing the applicant addressed a letter to the Public Service Commission asking on 20 his behalf that, because of his acquittal on the said 10charges, and as he believed that the reasons for which his client had been interdicted had ceased to exist, his interdiction ought to beterminatedimmediately. Copyoftheaboveletterofcounsel for the applicant is attached to the Opposition as Appendix
3. 25 The Public Service Commission, at its meeiing of the 24th October, 1979,after takingintoconsideration applicant'scounsel letter and an advice of the Deputy Attorney-General on the matter, reached the conclusion not to terminate his interdiction before the final determination of the case. This decision, 30 which was communicated to counsel for the applicant by letter dated the 31st October, 1979, is the subjecl of this recourse. The decision reached by the Public Service Commission on the 24th October, 1979 and the letter addressed to counsel on the 31st October, 1979 are appended to my decision as 35 Appendixes A and B. Before proceeding any further, it is pertinent to examine, 560 3 C.L.R. K>riacou v. Republic Demetriades J. at this stage, one of themain submissions put forward by counsel for the respondents, namely that thesubjudice decision isnotof an executory nature, but a confirmatory one of their previous decision to interdict the applicant, which, as it is admitted, 5 has not been challenged by recourse. With regard to the above submission of counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant has stressed that it is not the decision to interdict him that is challenged by this recourse, but the failure of the respondents to recognise that the applicant's interdiction 10 came to an end, in view of the developments which supervened during the'disciplinary proceedings, namely the acquittal of the applicant on 10 out of the 26 charges preferred against him. Under Article 146 of the Constitution this Court hasexclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on a recourse made to it on 15 a complaint that the decision or act:or omission of any organ authority or person exercising executive or administrative authority is contrary to any of the provisions of theConstitution or of any law or is made in excess or in abuse of powers vested in such organ or authority or person. 20 25 In the present case the question that arises for consideration is whether the subjudice act is one for which the applicant can avail himself of thejurisdiction of this Court. It is well known that not every act emanating from an administrative organ can be made the subject of a recourse but only those which are of an executory nature. What is an executoiy act is defined in the following extract from the Conclusions from the Case-Law of the Council of State in Greece 1929-1959 at p. 237:- 30 35 έκεΐναι δι* ών δηλοϋτσι βούλησις διοικητικούοργάνου, αποσκοπούσα είς την παραγωγήν έννομου αποτελέσματος έναντι των διοικούμενων καΐ συνεπαγόμενη την άμεσον έκτέλεσιν αυτής δια της διοικητικής όδοΰ. Το κύριον στοιχεΐον της εννοίας της εκτελεστής πράϋεωςείναι ή άμεσος παραγωγή έννομου αποτελέσματος, συνισταμένου εις την δημιουργίαν, τροποποίησιν ή κατάλυσιν νομικής καταστά­ σεως, ήτοι δικαιωμάτων και υποχρεώσεων διοικητικού χαρακτήρος παρά τοϊς διοικουμένοις". (" those by which the will of the administrative organ is declared, intending the creation of a legal situation 561 Demetriades J. Kyriacou v. Republic

(1981)towards the subjects involving its direct execution by administrative means. The main element of themeaning of executory act is the direct creation of a legal result, consi­ sting of the creation, amendment or abolilion of a legal situation, i.e. rights and obligations of an administrative character by the subjects"). Is it that in the present case the Public Service Commission have, by their decision not to terminate the interdiction of the applicant, created or produced a legal situation concerning the applicant and entailing its direct execution by administrative means? 5 10 What counsel asked, in the present case, was that, because of the acquittal of his client on 10 out of the 26 charges he was facing, his interdiction ought to be terminated. The remaining 16 charges pending then against him were for offences 15 which are considered to be not only of a nature unbecoming for a civil servant, but, also, punishable by the Criminal Code, i.e. insults, assaults, unlawful possession of firearms and offences against public order. These charges formed part of the original complaint of the 20 Director General of the Ministry of Health on which the Public Service Commission based its decision for the interdiction of the applicant. Therefore, the decision of the Commission, after the letter of counsel for the applicant, not to terminate his interdiction, was not based on any new facts before it, and 25 for this reason, such decision can only be held to be a confiimatory and not an executory act and as such it cannot be made the subject of a recourse. If authority is required on this, see Economides v. The Republic,

(1980)3 C.L.R. 219, 223, 224 and the Conclusions, supra, where (at p. 240) the following are 30 stated in this respect: "Πρά&Είς βεβαιωτικά!. Άπαραδέκτως προσβάλλονται δι' αίτήσεως ακυρώσεως, ώς στερούμΕναι εκτελεστού χαρακτή­ ρας, αϊ βεβαιωτικά! πράξεις, ήτοι αϊ πράΕεις σ'ι εχουσαι τό αυτό περιεχόμενον προς προεκδοθεϊσαν έκτελεστήν, έπι- 35 βεβαιοΰσαι ταυτην, ανεξαρτήτως τοΰ αν έκδίδωνται αυτε­ παγγέλτως ή τη αΙτήσ<·ι τοϋ ενδιαφερομένου. Οΰτω είναι βεβαιωτική ή πράίις ή συνιστώσα άπλήν επανάληψιν προ­ γενεστέρας, ή στηριζομένη έπϊ τ ή ; αυτής πραγματικής καΐ νομικής βάσεως. ΠραΣις δηλοϋσα άπλήν έμμονήν τής 48 562 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Kyriacou v. Republic Demetriades J. Διοικήσεως είς προηκουμένην πραΕιν, ϋστω καΐ μή έτταναλαμβάνουσα τό περιεχόμενον ταύτης,αποτελεί επίσης βεβαιωτικήν πραίιν, ώς λ.χ. ή έμμονη ε!ς προγενεστέρανάρνησιν. Ούτω εκρίθησαν βεβαιωτικά!πράΕεις ή δρνησις της Διοικήσεως όπως άνακαλέση προηγουμένην έκτελεστήν πραϋιν, ή άπόρριψις απλής Ιεραρχικής προσφυγής ή αΐτήσεως θεραπείας". ("Confirmatory acts. Unacceptably they are attacked by recourse for annulment, as lacking executory character, confirmatory acts i.e. acts which have the same contents with a pre-issued executory one, confirming same, irrespe­ ctive of whether they are issued on the motion of the admi­ nistration or on the application of the interested party. Thus confirmatory is an act which consists of a mere repe, tition of a previous one, based on the same factual and legal basis. An act stating a mere persistence of the administration to a previous act, even though it does not repeat its contents also constitutes a confirmatory act, as for instance the persistence to a previous refusal. Thus the refusal of the Administration to revoke a previous executory act,thedismissal of a simple hierarchical recomse or an application for relief were considered as confirmaloiy acts"). In view of my above decision, I am of the opinion that there 25 is no need to examine any other ground raised in these procee­ dings and, in the result, this recourse is dismissed with costs, if claimed. Application dismissed with costs. "ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ A Πρακτικά τής συνεδριάσεως τής Επιτροπής Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας ημερομηνίας 24.10.799.15 π.μ. Παρόντες: Πρόεδρος: Τ. Φανός. Μέλη: Α. 'Αναστασίου, Γ. Λουκά, θ . Χρήστου, Λ. Χριστοδονλου. Γραμματεύς: Κ.Χ. Μακρίδης. 563 Demetriades J. Kyriacou v. Republic

(1981)(β) οί λόγοι καΐ τά περιστατικά επί τών οποίων έβασίσθη ή διαθεσιμότης τοΰ κ. Κυριάκου δέν έχουν ύποστή τοιαύτην διαφοροποίησιν ώστε νά δικαιολογήται ή άρσις τού μέτρου τηςδιαθεσιμότητος πρό τήςτελικής συμπλη­ ρώσεις τής πειθαρχικής υποθέσεως. 5 Έν προκειμένω ή Επιτροπή έπανεΕήτασε μετάπροσο­ χής τους λόγους διά τους οποίους όένλόγω υπάλληλος ετέθη εϊςδιαθεσιμότητα καΐκατέληΕεν είςτό συμπέρασμα δτι τό μέτρον τούτο ελήφθη τόσον προς τόν σκοπόν παρεμποδίσεως επηρεασμού των μαρτύρων κατηγορίας 10 δσον καΐ δι'άλλους & Τσουσοβαρούς λόγους. Οί τοιού­ τοι λόγοι αφορούν είς τήνέργασίαν καΐ τάς εύθυνας τοΰ κ. Κυριάκου ώς 'Εσωτερικού Διευθυντού τού Ιδρύματος Ά γ . Χαράλαμπος. Ή ίί αυτού Ιεραρχική έΕάρτησις τού προσωπικού άφ* ενός καΐ ή μετ' αυτού σχέσις τών 15 τροφίμων τού Ιδρύματοςάφ'έτερου, ευλόγως τεκμαίρεται δτι έχουν δυσμενώς έπηρεασθή λόγω τήςσοβαρότητας τών αδικημάτων διά τά όποϊα ούτος κατηγορείται. Ή ύπό τού καθού ή δίωΕις άσκησις τών καθηκόντων του εκκρεμούσης τήςεναντίον του πειθαρχικής υποθέσεως 20 κρίνεται ότι Θά άπέβαινεν έπιζημία διά τήν όμαλήν καΐ άπρόσκοπτον λειτουργίαν καΐ έΕυπηρέτησιν τών σκοπών τού Ιδρύματος. "Εχουσα ύ π 'όψιν τάανωτέρω, ή Επιτροπή άπεφάσισεν όπως μή τερματίση τήν διαθεσιμότητα τούκ. 'Αργυρού Κυριάκου πρό 25 της τελεκής συμπληρώσεως της εναντίον του πειθαρχικής υπο­ θέσεως". "ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Β Άρ. Φακ.: ΓΤ.9146/1ΙΙ ΓΡΑΦΕΙΟ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑΣ ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΑΣ ΛΕΥΚΩΣΙΑΣ 31 'Οκτωβρίου,

1. Κύριε, "Εχω οδηγίες νά αναφερθώ στην επιστολή σας μέ ήμερ. 5 'Οκτωβρίου, 1979, μέ τήν οποία ζητάτε τόν τερματισμό τής 35 διαθεσιμότητας τού πελάτη σας κ. 'Αργύρου Κυριάκου καΐ νά σας πληροφορήσω τά ακόλουθα:
2. Ή Επιτροπή Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας επιλήφθηκε τού θέματος 566 30 3 C.L.R. Kyriacou v. Republic Demetriades J. σέ πρόσφατη συνεδρία της καί έ*λαβε σοβαρά υπόψη τις παρα­ στάσεις σας. 5 10
3. Ή Επιτροπή έλαβε επίσης υπόψη καΐ καθοδηγήθηκε στην απόφαση της από γνωμάτευση τοΰ Γενικού Είσαγγελέα τής Δημοκρατίας.
4. Τάάποδοθέντα στάν πελάτη σαςαδικήματαγιάτάΟποία είχε διαταχθεί πειθαρχική Ερευνα εναντίον του, βάσει τής οποίας ή Επιτροπή Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας τόν έθεσε σέ διαθεσιμότητα, καλύπτουν έκτος άπόεκείνα γιά τά όποϊα αθωώθηκε κατά τή διάρκεια τής ακροάσεως τηςεναντίοντου πειθαρχικής υποθέσεως καί άλλα μεταΕύ τών οποίων περιλαμβάνονται καΐ αποδιδόμενες σ* αυτόν δραστηριότητες πού σχετίζονται μέτό πραξικόπημα καί πού άποτελοΰν αντικείμενο κατηγοριών πάνω στίς όποΤες ή πειθαρχική υπόθεση δέν έχει ακόμη συμπληρωθεί., 15
5. Οί λόγοι καίτά περιστατικά πάνω στά όποια βασίστηκε ή διαθεσιμότητα τοΰ πελάτη σαςδένέχουν υποστεί τέτοια δια­ φοροποίηση πούνά δικαιολογείται ή άρση τού μέτρου διαθεσι­ μότητας πρίν άπότήν τελική συμπλήρωση ολόκληρης τής πειθαρ­ χικής υποθέσεως εναντίοντου. 20
6. Γιά τους πιο πάνω λόγους ή Επιτροπή αποφάσισε νά μήν τερματίσει τή διαθεσιμότητα εναντίον τούκ. 'Αργυρού Κυρι­ άκου πρίν άπότήν τελική συμπλήρωση τ ή ;πειθαρχικής υποθέ­ σεως. Μ| εκτίμηση, (Ύπ.) Κ. ΜΑΡΚΙΔΗΣ Γιά Πρόεδρο Επιτροπής Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας. 25 30 35 Κύριο Κ. Κληρίδη, Δικηγόρο, 'Ακίνητα ΣιαντεκλαΙρ, Όδός Σοφούλη 'Αρ.28, Λευκωσία. Κοιν.: Γεν. Διευθ. Ύπ. Υγείας, Διευθ. Τμ. Ίατρ. Υπηρεσιών, Κο 'Αργυρό Κυριάκου, Εσωτερικό Διευθυντή Στέγης 'Αγ. Χαραλάμπους, (Μέσω Δ.Τ.Ι.Υ.)" 567 Demetriades J. Kyriacou v. Republic

(1981)(''Appendix A Minutes of the meeting of the Public Service Commission dated 24.10.799.15 a.m. Present: Chairman: T. Phanos 5 Members: A. Anastassiou Y. Louca Th. Christou L. Christodoulou Secretary: K. Ch. Makrides 10

1. Application by Mr. Arghyros Kyriacou, Internal Director of St. Charalambos Home in the Medical Department, for the termination of his interdiction regarding a disciplinary case against him. The Director-General of the Ministry of Health, acting for 15 the appropriate authority, by his letter No. M.H. 407/61/8 dated 21st February, 1978,informed the PublicServiceCommission that a disciplinary investigation has been ordered againit Mr. Arghyros Kyriacou, Internal Director of St. Charalambos Home, foi a number of serious discipUnary offences which 20 have been submitted by the patients and the personnel of St. Charalambos Home at Larnaca. In the same letter he mentioned that 'these offences refer to insults, intimidations, beatings, indecent assaults against female workers, insulting the late President of the Republic 25 Archbishop Makarios and so on* and submitted that, in the public interest, the Commission may interdict him until the final completion of the case, according to section 84 of the Public Service Law No. 33/
2. The Public Service Commission considered the above matter at its meeting of 22nd February, 1978, and decided that Mr. Kyriacou be interdicted, in the public interest, from the 23rd February, 1978 until the final determination of the case. Mr. Kyriacou was allowed to receive half of the emoluments of his post during his interdiction. 568 30 35 3 C.L.R. Kyriacou v. Republic Demetriades J, The said decision of the Commission was communicated to the said officer by a letter of its Chaiiman No..P. 9146 and dated 22nd February,
3. .On the 27th April, 1979,the appropriate authority tiansmitted 5 to the Commission for further action the charges formulated by the Attorney-General of the Republic against Mr. Kyriacou. which included disciplinary offences which related directly with the coup d'etat and subsequent offences. The hearing of the disciplinary case against Mr. Kyriacou 10 started on 18.9.1979 on the basis of the formulated charges, and in the course of the hearing and precisely on 24.9.1979 Counsel of the prosecuting authority asked for leave to withdraw counts 17-
4. The Commission allowed the withdrawal and consequently acquitted the accused on these counts. 15 Advocate Mr. C. Clerides, acting on behalf of Mr. Kyriacou, by a letter to the Commission dated 5.10.1979 alleged that his client has been interdicted due to the alleged commission by him of certain disciplinary offences of a purely official chaiacter, which after investigation were included in the charge as counts 20 17-
5. Mr. Clerides by his letter further contended that in the light of the withdrawal of the said counts by the prosecuting authority and the acquittal of Mr. Kyriacou, the reasons for which Mr. Kyriacou has been interdicted by the Commission have 25 been removed and has asked that the interdiction of Mr. Kyriacou be terminated and that he be allowed to receive the full amount of his emoluments, which he would have received had he not been interdicted. The matter was placed before the Attorney-General of the 30 Republic who has advised that the facts of the case do not justify the termination of the interdiction of Mr. Arghyros Kyriacou for reasons which he referred to in hisletters under No. A.G. 115/1976/6 dated 22nd and 23rd October,
6. The Public Service Commission having taken seriously the 35 representations of Mr. Kyriacou's advocate as well as the opinion of the Attorney-General of the Republic, decided that: (a) The offences attributed to Mr. Arghyros Kyriacou, for which a disciplinary investigation was ordered 569 Demetriades J. Kyriacou v. Republic

(1981)and on which the Commission has interdicted him cover, besides thosefor which hewas acquitted during the hearing of thedisciplinary case against him,other offences among which are included those activities attributed to him which are connected with the coup 5 d' etat and which are the subject of counts on which the disciplinary Case has not as yet been completed. (b) The reasons and circumstances on which the inter­ diction of Mr. Kyriacou has been based have not undergone such a changeasto justify theremoval of 10 the measure of interdiction before the final deter­ mination of the case. In this respect the Commission has re-examined carefully the reasons for which the said officer has been interdicted and has reached the conclusion 15 that this measure has been taken bothfor the purpose of avoiding his tamperingwith prosecution witnesses and for other equally serious reasons. These reasons concern the work and the responsibilities of Mr. Kyriacou as Internal Director of the St. Charalambos 20 Home. The hierarchical dependency to him of the personnel on the one hand and the relationship of the inmates of theHomeontheotherhandcan reason­ ably he presumed to have been piejudicially affected due to the gravity of the offences for which he is 25 charged. Theexercise by therespondent of his duties while the disciplinary cass against him is pending is considered that it would beinjurious tothe smooth and unhindered functioning and the service of the purposes of the Home. 30 Having in mind all the above, the Commission decided not to teiTninate the interdiction of Mr. Argyros Kyriacou befoie the final determination of the disciplinary case against him"). No. P. 9146/111 ("AppendixΒ THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICECOMMISSION NICOSIA 31 October, 1979 570 35 3 C.L.R, Kyriacou v. Republic Demetriades J. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 5October, 1979, whereby you ask for the termination of the interdiction of your client Mr. Arghyros Kyriacou and to inform you the 5 following: 2. The Public Service Commission considered the matter at a recent meeting and took seriously into consideration your representations. 3. The Commission took also into consideration and was 10 guided in reaching its decision by the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral of the Republic. 4. The attributed to your client offences for which a disciplinary investigation had been ordered against him, on the " basis of which the Public Service Commission interdicted him, 15 cover besides those for which he was-acquitted during the hearing of the disciplinary case against him and others among which are included activities attributed to him which relate to the coup d* etat and which are the subject of counts on which the disciplinary case has not as yet been completed. 20 5. The reasons and circumstances on which the interdiction of your client has been based have not undergone such a change as to justify the removalof the measure of interdiction before the final determination of the whole disciplinary case against him. 25 6. Foi the above reasons the Commission decided not to terminate the interdiction of Mr. Argyros Kyriacou before the final•deteimination of the disciplinary case. With respect (Sgd) K. Makrides for Chairman Public Service Commission Mr. C. Clerides Advocate Nicosia)". 571