clr/1982/1982_3_1067.pdf

(3)of the Army of the Republic (Constitution, Enlistment and Discipline)(Amend5 • ment) Law, 1973 (Law 46/73). 10 15 20 The applicant, an officer in the Army of the Republic, who has been serving in the National Guard on secondment, was punished disciplinarily in disciplinary proceedings which were instituted, conducted and concluded under the relevant provisions of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Army of the Republic, 1962; and hence this recourse: Held, that asthe applicant was at all material times seconded for service in the National Guard he was subject, as iegards disciplinary matters, to the relevant provisions of the National Guard legislation and not to the corresponding provisions of the Army of theRepublic legislation (seesection 2

(3)of Law 46/73); that, therefore, the whole disciplinary process against the applicant which led to the sub judice decision was based onlegislativeprovisionswhichwereinapplicabletotheapplicant at all material times; accordingly the sub judice decision must be annulled. Subjudice decision annulled. 1067 Economides v. Republic

(1982)Cases referred to: Economides v. Republic(reported inthisPart at p. 1156post). Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent Disciplinary Board dated 22nd June, 1979 and which was approved by the 5 respondent Minister by virtue of which applicant was found guilty of, and punished for, disciplinary offences. Applicant appeared in person. M. Kyprianou,Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 10 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. Bymeans of thepresent recourse the applicant challengesadecision ofthe respondent Disciplinary Board, dated 22nd June 1979, which was approved by the respondent Minister of Defence on 24th 15 July 1979, and by virtue of which he was found guilty of, and punished for, disciplinary offences. The applicant, who isan officer in theArmy of theRepublic, has, at all material times, been serving in the National Guard on secondment. The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were instituted, conducted and concluded under the relevant provisions of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Army of the Republic, 1962 (see No. 596, Third Supplement to the Official Gazette of 26th November 1962). The applicant has contended that the Disciplinary Board which was constituted under the aforesaid Regulations had no competence to deal with the disciplinary offences allegedly committed by him, as the applicant at all material times was seconded for service in the National Guard and, therefore, by 30 virtue of section 2

(3)of the Army of the Republic (Constitution, Enlistment and Discipline) (Amendment) Law, 1973 (Law 46/73) he was subject, as regards disciplinary matters, to the relevant provisions of the National Guard legislation and not to the corresponding provisions of the Army of the Re- 35 public legislation. For the reasons already given in myjudgment in Economides 1068 20 25 3 C.L.R. Economides v. Republic TriantafyHides P. v. The Republic (case No. 352/78, in which judgment was delivered on24thApril 1982,and not reported yet*),whichIneed not repeat now and which should be deemed as incorporated in thisjudgment, I am of the view that the whole disciplinary 5 processagainst theapplicant, whichled to thesubjudice in the present proceedings decision of the Disciplinary Board, was, like the applicant's interdiction in connection with such process (which was the subject matter of the applicant's recourse in the Economides case, supra) based on legislative provisions 10 which were inapplicable to the appUcant at the material time, and, therefore, the said decision of the Disciplinary Board, as well as its approval by the Minister of Defence, have to be annulled as being contrary to law. In view ofmy aboveconclusion thereisno need to deal with 15 any of the other issues which were ra;sed in the present case. In the light of all relevant circumstances I have decided to make no order as regards the costs of this case. Subjudice decision annulled. No orderas to costs. Now reported in

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1156. 1069