Π 985) 1985 February 16 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION NIOVI PAPAIOANNOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, Respondent. (Case No. 430/79). Natural Justice—Educational Officers—Disciplinary Proceedings —Failure to inform applicant that the purpose of her pre sence at the office of the Head of Department,whereshe was summoned to appear,was to conducta disciplinary he aring—Applicant acquainted for the first time at the hearing 5 that a second investigation in respect of her conduct to wards the investigatingofficer investigating the initial com plaints against her had been carried out—Failure to make available to her the reports of the two investigating of ficers—But the conclusions in such reports read to her—• 10 Sub judice disciplinary punishment annulled as the rules of natural justice had not been adequately complied with. Educational Officers—Disciplinary Proceedings—No record kept of hearing—In the circumstances such hearing does not comply with the requirementof proper administration. 15 P. Ioannides- was the investigating officer in respect of a complaint against the applicant, who at all material times was the Headmistress of the Fourth Elementary School of Aglandjia. As from the report he submitted there appeared that applicant was interfering with his task and was con- 2Θ tending that he was biased against her, A. Anastasiades, a General Inspector of Elementary Education, was ap2264 3 C.L.R. Papatoennou v. Republic pointed as an investigating officer in relation to this aspect of applicant's behaviour. He also submitted a report suggesting the applicant's punishment. 5 10 15 The applicant was then summoned at the Office of the Head of Department of Elementary Education where in the presence of the said two investigating Officers a hearing was conducted regarding the disciplinary charges against her. The applicant, when summoned as aforesaid, was not informed that a hearing would take place. No record of the hearing was kept. She was never informed of the investigation by Mr. Anastassiades at any time prior to the said hearing. The two reports were not made available to her. Only the conclusions in such reports were read out to her and then she was given the opportunity to reply. As a result of the hearing the disciplinary punishment of severe reprimand was imposed on the applicant. Hence the present recourse. 2# Held, annulling the sub judice decision:
(1)The disciplinary hearing and the investigation by Mr. Anastassiades were not conducted in adequate compliance with the rules of natural justice which are also embodied in the relevant provisions of Law 10/69. 25
(2)Moreover, such hearing, due to lack of record, does not comply with the requirements of proper administration. Sub judicedecision annulled. No orderas to costs. 50 Case* referred to: Medcon Construction v. TheRepublic
(1968)3 C.L.R.535; Eltinas v. The Republic
(1975)3 C.L.R. 248; Iosif v. CY.T.A.
(1975)3 C.L.R.261; Eleftheriouv. CentralBank of Cyprus
(1980)3 C.L.R. 85. 2265 Papsioannou v. Republic
(1986)Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent whereby the disciplinary punishment of serious reprimand was imposed on the applicant. M. Christophides, for the applicant. 5 A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant challenges the 10 decision of the Head of Department of Elementary Education, in the Ministry of Education, to impose on her the disciplinary punishment of serious reprimand. The applicant was, at all material times, the Headmistress of the Fourth Elementary School at Aglandjia. After a 15 complaint had been made against her, regarding her behaviour towards a member of the teaching staff of that school, an Inspector of Elementary Education, Mr. P. Ioannides, was appointed as an investigating officer under the relevant provisions of the Educational Service Law, 20 1969 (Law 10/69). The applicant was informed by the investigating officer about the complaints against her and she made a written statement refuting them. The investigating officer prepared his report and sub- 25 mitted it to the Head of Department of Elementary Education and suggested that the applicant should be heard in relation to the charges against her. As from such report there appeared that the applicant was interfering with the task of the investigating officer 30 and was contending that he was biased against her a General Inspector of Elementary Education, Mr. A. Anastassiades, was appointed as an investigating officer in relation to this aspect of the behaviour of the applicant and 35 he submitted a report suggesting that she should be punished in respect of it. 2266 3 C.L.R. Papaioannou v. Republic Trlantafyllides P. Then, the applicant was summoned to the office of the Head of Department of Elementary Education without being informed expressly that a hearing regarding the disciplinary charges against her would take place. 5 At the office of the Head of Department of Elementary Education there were present, also, the two investigating officers, Mr. Ioannides and Mr. Anastassiades, and it is common ground that on that occasion there took place a hearing regarding the disciplinary charges against the 10 applicant. There was not, however, kept any record at all of the proceedings at such hearing and thus the exercise of judicial control of that stage of the disciplinary process against the applicant is severely hampered (see, inter alia, Medcon 15 Construction v. The Republic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 535, 543, Ellinas v. The Republic,
(1975)3 C.L.R. 248, 253, 254, losif v. Cyprus Telecommunications Authority,
(1975)3 C.L.R. 261, 275 and Eleftheriou v. Central Bank of Cyprus,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 85, 99, 100). 20 Evidence was adduced, by way of affidavits and oral testimony, regarding what exactly took place at such hearing and for the purposes of this judgment it is sufficient to rely on facts which, on the basis of such evidence, do not appear to be really in dispute. 25 It seems that the reports of the investigating officers, Mr. Ioannides and Mr. Anastassiades, were not made available to the applicant and were not read out to her but only the conclusions in such reports were made known to her and then she was given the opportunity to reply to them. 30 It is, furthermore, clear that the applicant had never been informed about the investigation which was carried out by Mr. Anastassiades, and that she came to know of it for the first time in the office of the Head of Department of Elementary Education during the hearing about the charges against her. 35 On the basis of all the foregoing I have reached the conclusion that the investigation carried out by Mr. Anastassiades and the disciplinary hearing at the office of the Head of Department of Elementary Education were not con2267 Trlantafyllides P. Papaioannou v. Republic
(1985)ducted with adequate compliance with the rules of natural justice, which are also embodied in relevant provisions of Law 10/69; and, moreover, such hearing, due to the complete lack of any relevant records, cannot be treated as complying with the requirements of proper administration. 5 In view of my above conclusions the sub judice decision has to be annulled. I am not making any order as to the costs of this recourse. Sub judice decisionannulled. 10 No order as to costs. 2268