(1987)1987September 11 [A LOIZOU,JJ INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION AVRAGEORGHIOUKNAI, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (Case No. 868/85). Public Officers — Promotions — Confidential reports — Leakageof confidential reports concerning candidate to such candidate — Does not invalidate proceedings — ThePublic ServiceLaw33/67,section45
(4)andCircular 491 of the Council of Ministers — These two provisions govern the duty of the Administration to communicate a report totheofficer concerned, butdonot affecttheissueof 'leakage* in thiscase. 5 Public officers — Promotions — Confidential reports — Complaints by officer concerned concerning their impartiality — Duty of Public Service Commission to inquire into matter — Placing before the Commission in support of such complaints of written assurancesgiven bysenior officers of 10 theDepartment — Assuch letterswere forwarded for thepurpose of beinq usedin the inquiry relating to thereports, no principle of law was offended thereby. Public Officers — Promotions — Striking superiority — Burden ofproof caston applicant. li> Administrative Law — Due inquiry — Whenaninquiry isconsideredasproper — A question offact. The applicant challenges thepromotion of theinterestedpartytothe post of SpecialistAnaesthesiologist inthe Medical HealthServices. The applicant and the interested party have equal qualifications. The interestedpartyissenior to theapplicant byaboutayearandahalf. By lettersdated3.6.86, 10.6.86and25.6.86addressedto the respondent ( ommissiontheinterestedpartycomplainedthather confidential reportsfor theyears 1982,1983 and 1984didnotreflecttherealsituation.Insupport of 1534 20 3C.L.B. Knaiv. Republic herallegationsshe forwarded totheCommissionwrittenassurancesgivenby threeSeniorSpecialistsaswellastheofficer inchargeoftheAnaesthesiology Department of theNicosiaGeneral HospitalDr Megalemos ·"> 10 TheDirectoictMedicalandPublicHealthServices,whowasrequestedby the Commission toexpresshi?viewsinrespect ofsuch complaints, wrote to the Commission that ha CHIP to theconclusion thatthereportfor 1984was not obischve. that she should be rated «excellent» in all respects, and that confidential reports for 1982 and 1983must be rated with «excellent» inall respects TheDirectorofMedicalandHealthServices,whenheappearedbefore the Commission stated that both the applicant and the interested party are «noteworthyotiicers» 15 IntherelevantminutesoftiieCommissionitisstatedthatitapproached the confidenhal reports of the interested party in the light of the result of the inquiry earned out by the Director and the three written assurances of the three specialists Applicant was rated excellent for six continuous years, whereastheinterestedpartywasratedassuchforfourcontinuousyears. 20 The Commission considered that it would not be correct to attribute particularimportancetothefactthatoncertainparagraphsofthegradinglosif was rated as «very good» the last years, having also in mind that the confidential reports of the two officers were prepared bydifferent reporting officers. 25 Finally, it must be noted that on the issue of the aforesaid confidential reportsevidence wasadduced before theCourt. Itisan undeniable fact that therewasasudden change intheratingoftheinterested party, forwhich no satisfactory explanation wasgiventothe Court. Theapplicant'scomplaintsare: (a)Seriousviolationofform orprocedurebytheleakageofthecontentsof theaforesaid confidential reportsofthe interestedparty. 30 (b) Material violation of form and procedure by the placing before the Commission ofthe«lettersofrecommendation» (ascounseldescribedthem) ofthewrittenassurances ofthethreeseniorspecialists. (c) The Commission had no competence to order an inquiry into the allegationsof theinterested partyrelatingtotheaforesaid reports. 35 (d)Theinquirywasnot,inanyevent,suiicient fortheascertainmentofthe real facts. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Section 45
(4)ofthePublicServiceLaw, 1967 provides that the person preparing a confidential report in which an officer is criticised for negligence, failures or improper behaviour in the 1535 Knalv. Republic
(1987)perfonmance of his duties must communicate to the officer concerned that part of the report and underthe Regulatory Orders made bythe Councilof Ministers under circular No.491 the ratingof an officer iscommunicated to himonlywhen Heisdescribed as«average»or «insufficient». These two provisions clearly cast a duty on the appropriate officer to communicatetotheofficer concernedthecontentsofwhatmaybedescribed asanadverse report,butthegistoftheissueiswhethertheknowledge ofthe contentsofaconfidential reportfromwhateversource-andinanyeventsuch knowledgewasderivednotfromthePublicServiceCommissionoritsofficers -invalidatestheproceedingsandthedecisionreachedtherein.Thiscannotbe so as the Commission cannot be found at fault regarding the procedure followed orinthedischargeofitsdutiesundertheLawandtheexerciseofits discretionary powers.
(2)The letters of the three specialists were not mere letters of recommendation that were forwarded to the respondent Commission by themselves buttobe used forthe purposesof an inquiry intoherallegations about thereport.Assuchtheyoffended noprincipleof Law.Thisgroundof Lawalsofails. 5 10 15
(3)The Commission had a duty to inquire Into the allegations of vindictiveness and unfairness promoted by personal reasons as claimed by 2 0 theInterestedpartyregardingherconfidential reports.Itiswrongtoassertthat theinquirywascarriedoutbytheDirector.Onthecontrary,itwascarriedout by the Commission, which thought fit to bring certain matter» to his knowledge.
(4)Whatisproper inquirydepends onthecircumstances ofeach caseand thereIsnoreasontoconcludethattheonecarriedoutinthepresentcasewas nota proper one. 25 (5i The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that she was strikinglysuperiortothe interested party. Recoursedismissed. No ordera»tocosts. Casesreferredto; HadjiGeorghiouv. TheRepublic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 35. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe 35 interested party tothe postofSpecialistAnaestheslologistinthe Medicaland PublicHealth Servicesinpreference and insteadof theapplicant, 1536 30 3 C.L.R. Knalv. Republic K. Talarides, forthe applicant. A. Papasawas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. N.Zomenis, forinterested party. 5 Cur.adv. vult. A. LOIZOU J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant seeks a declaration of the Court that the decision of the respondent Commission by which it promoted Nina losif,-{hereinafter tobe referred toastheinterested party)10 tothepostofSpecialistAnaesthesiologistintheMedicalandPublic Health Services, published inthe official Gazette of the Republic of the 20th September 1985, Notification No. 2407, is null and void and with no legal effect. There were at the time two vacant posts of specialist in the 15 MedicalServicesand inaccordance withthe note tothe relevant Scheme of Service (Appendix «C»), one was allocated to Anesthesiology and the other to Surgery, hence the reference which is to be found to both of them in the several documents which indue course willbe examined. 20 In compliance to the provisions of section 36 of the Public Service Laws 1967-1983, and the Regulatory Orders made thereunder, a Departmental Board was set up under the Chairmanship of the Director of the Medical and Public Health Services, which examined, in accordance with the prescribed 25 procedure, the position as regards the various candidates and submitted its report to the respondent Commission by its letter dated the 22nd June 1985, appendix thereto the minutes of its meeting ofthe 7thJune, 1985(Appendix4). The Departmental Board considered that thirteen of the 30 candidates possessed the required qualifications under the Scheme whereasthe remaining twelvedid not qualify astheydid not have at least three years service in the post of Registrar. The Board thereby havingexamined allthematerialbefore itselected and recommended four of them for selection for promotion. Out 35 of them one was the sole person recommended for the specialisation of Surgery and the remaining three for Anaesthesiology whoinalphabeticalorderwerethefollowing:
(1)1537 A. Loizou J. Knai v.Republic
(1987)Josef Nina, (the interested party),
(2)Knai Avra {the present applicant)and {3)Spanos Chrysostomos. TherespondentCommissionatitsmeetingofthe3rdJuly1985, decided to consider for the specialisation of Anaesthesiology in addition to the candidates recommended by the Departmental Board, Anna Achilleoude and Pantelitsa Nicolaidou, who had highconfidential reportsforthelastyears(Achilleoudebeingrated «Excellent»for the lastthreeyearsand Nicolaidou «VeryGood»in 1982and «Excellent»in 1983and 1984)(Appendix4). 5 The interested party by letters dated the 3rd June 1986, 10th 10 and 25th June 1985, addressed to the respondent Commission complained thattheconfidential reportsonherfortheyears1982, 1983,1984, did not reflectthe realsituation and insupport of her allegations she sent written assurances given by three Senior Specialists as well as the officer incharge of the Anaesthesiology 15 DepartmentoftheNicosiaGeneral Hospital,SeniorSpecialistDr Megalemos, (Appendices6,7,8). Ineed notrefertotheircontents now as I shall do so in due course and in connection with the evidence adduced before me. Upon that the respondent Commission invited the Director of Medical and Public Health 20 Services to express his views regarding the allegations of the interested party contained inthe aforesaid letters (Appendices 9 and 10). The Director by letters dated 26th June 1985, and 16th July, 1985, (Appendices 11, 12), conveyed his views regarding the 25 confidential reports on the interested party for the years 1982, 1983,
- In his letter of the 26th June (Appendix 11) he stated the following:«I refer to your letter under reference number P. 14765 30 dated 6th June, 1985, regarding the allegations of Mrs.Nina lacovidou -losif, Registrar in the Medical and Public Health Services, that her confidential report for the year 1984 does not reflect the real situation.
- In this respect, Iwish to report that Iinvestigated Mrs. 35 Iosif's contentions and that I discussed the whole matterwith theChiefMedicalOfficerNicosia,Dr.P.Eliadesaswellaswith the surgeons of the Nicosia General Hospital, Messrs An. Papanastassiou, Senior Medical Specialist (Surgeon), P. 1538 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Knaiv. Republic A.Loizou J. Theodondes, Senior Medical Specialist (Urologist)and Nikos Spanos, Senior Medical Specialist (Neurosurgeon) All the above mentioned assured me that she is a perfectly well qualified Anaesthesiologisi, compel,nt, andvery cooperative withincreased supervisory abilities 3 Inviewofallthe above and the wntten confession ofthe ex Director of the Department Mr Megalemos, who has already retired, that Mrs losif hasalwaysbeen excellent inall respects, I have come to the conclusion that Mrs. Iosif's confidential report for the year 1984, was not objective and that she should be rated with 'excellent' in all respects 4 In the meantime Iforward Mrs lacovidou's new letter regarding her confidential reports for the years 1982 and 1983 and inform you that the investigation I made on this subject covers also this penod Her confidential reports for these years mustbe rated with 'excellent' mallrespects » The respondent Commission at its meeting of the 16th July 1985, heard the views of the Director after he was asked to take alsointoconsideration forthespecialisationofAnaesthesiologyin 20 addition to the candidates recommended by the Departmental Board, alsoAnnaAchilleoude and Pantehtsa Nicolaidou He isrecorded in the relevant minutes (Appendix 13) to have said the following 25 30 35 «For the post of Specialist in Anaesthesiology I cannot recommend only one, but Ishall refer to two losif Nina and KnaiAvra They are both noteworthy officers from the point of view of work and it is left to the Commission to select between them From the point of view of qualifications certain facts are mentioned. losif Nina graduated the University of Athens in 1965andspecialised inAthens She cametoCyprusin 1972 and she was appointed on daily wages Anaesthesiologisi In 1973shebecamepermanent Sheobtained herspecialisation from Greece on thebasisoftheexpenenceshehad, shesent her documents and herspecialisation wasrecognized in 1974 and as from that time she practices the profession of Anaesthesiologist in the Nicosia General Hospital From her reports her colleagues and supenors are pleased She was promoted tothe post of Registrar asfrom 1stApnl 1977 1539 A.L o U o u J . Knai v. Republic
(1987)KnaiAvra gratuated the University of Australia in 1965.In 1965-1966 she went to England and specialised in Anaesthesiology. In 1967 she wasappointed on daily wages in Cyprus and consequently hercareerstartslongbefore that of losifNina.Afterwards shewasappointed permanent inthe 5 Government service in 1969 and practiced the profession of Anaesthesiologist.Sheattendedalsoacoursein Copenhagen forawholeyear,shebroughtadiplomaandherspecialisation was recognised on thebasis of that diploma and her service and so shesecured thatspecialisation. 10 These are the qualifications of the two candidates, who from thepointofviewofqualificationsareofequalvalue.The onlydifference isthat KnaiAvrawasappointed asaRegistrar as from 15th December 1978,whereas losif Ninaas from 1st April
- losif Nina serves in Nicosia, Knai Avra at the Larnaca Hospital, Chrysostomos Spanos, in Nicosia, Anna AchilleoudeinNicosiaandPantelitsaNicolaidouinLarnaca.» He then referred to candidate Ioannides, for the specialisation of surgery and after the respondent Commission dealt with that 20 candidate itselected him asthe mostsuitable forthat post. The respondent Commission then reverted to the post of Anaesthesiologyand itsminutesreadas follows: «As regards the post of specialisation of Anaesthesiology, the Commission after comparing all the candidates came to 25 the conclusion that theselection hastobe madebetween the twocandidateswhom theDirectorgaveforselection, namely losif and Knai. The Commission approached the confidential reports of the two candidates with particular attention taking into 30 consideration that they were prepared bydifferent reporting officers. Especiallyinthecaseoflosif,theCommission approached herreportsinthelightof(a)theresultoftheinquirycarriedout bytheDirector ofMedicaland HealthServicesafter awritten 35 complaint by losif regarding her Confidential reports for the years 1982, 1983, 1984, and (b) the written assurances regarding her performance at work which three Senior 1540 15 3C.L.R. Knaiv. Republic A. L o i z o u J . Specialists gave and with whom losif cooperated allthistime in the performance of her duties in the post of Anaesthesiology. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 From the confidential reports on the two candidates the Commission noted that they are two officers with high performance during thewhole of theirservice. The Commission noted that Knai during the last six years (since the new type of confidential reports was introduced) was continuously 'Excellent' with analytical grading in 1979, 1980, 1982,1983 and 1984 12-0-0 and in 1981 10-2-
- On the other hand losif was'Excellent' for four continuous years.Morecorrectlyshe had in 1979,1980,1981,analytical grading 12-0-0and in1982,8-4-0.Forthelasttwoyearsthere was observed in the grading of this officer some reduction ('Very Good' withanalyticalgrading5-7-0, in 1983and 7-5-0 in 1984). In the light of all hereinabove mentioned the Commission considered that itwould not be conect to attribute particular importance to the fact that on certain paragraphs of the grading losif was rated as 'Very Good' the lastyears, having also in mind that the confidential reports of the two officers wereprepared bydifferent reportingofficers. Inanyevent,the general grading of losif in 1982, continued to be 'Excellent' and in 1983, 1984, washigh, infact in 1984shewasshortof being 'Excellent byone only paragraph. Fromthepointofviewofqualificationsthetwocandidatesare about equal, whereas from the the point of view of seniority losif isahead of Knaibyone and a halfand moreyears,given that she had been promoted to the post of Registraras from 1stApril 1977,whereasKnaiAvrawaspromoted tothe same post as from 15th December
- Inthe light of allmaterial before itthe Commission did not considersafe togiveundue weighttotheanalyticalgradingof losif during the last years but on the basis of the totality of established criteriacametothe conclusion thatlosifhas more claimsfor promotion. Inconclusion the Commission takingintoconsideration all the material factors before it, decided on the basis of the established criteria in their totality, (merit, qualification, seniority), 1541 A. Loizou J. Knai v. Republic
(1987)(
- a)that Andreas iocnnides issuitable for promotion to the post of specialisation inSurgery, and (
- b)thai Nina losif issuperior toall other candidates for the specialisation of Anaesthesiology, and decided to promote them as the most suitable to the 5 Permanent (OrdinaryBudget)postofMedicalSpecialistinthe Medical and Public Health Services as from the 1st August 1985, Ioannides for the post of Specialisation inSurgery and losif for the post of Specialisation in Anaesthesiology.» In order to complete the picture as regards the factual 10 background of this recourse reference has to be made to the evidence called before me. Dr. CostasMegalemos, aSenior SpecialistAnaesthesiologist in the Medical Services of the Republic who retired on the 1stJuly 1985, gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. He was the 15 reporting officer forinterested partyNinalosifsince 1977.Forthat year she wasrated as«Excellent*onallrateable itemsexcepttwo, namelydevotion todutyandabilitytoco-operatewithcolleaques, forwhichshewasratedas«VeryGood».Fortheyear1978shewas again reported upon and rated by him asan «outstanding officer» 20 on all rateable items. The countersigning officer, the Director of MedicalServicesDr.A.Markidesrated her asan excellent officer. For the year 1979 she was rated as «Excellent» on all rateable items, an assessment with which the countersigning officer also agreed. The same ratingisfound inthe reportsfortheyears 1980, 25 1981, 1982. In the report for the year 1980 there appears a comment that «she is hard working, cooperative with all her colleaguesand performs herdutiesinanimpeccablemanner. She is devoted and she never refuses to discharge the duties with which she is entrusted». Similar comments appear in the reports 30 for the following two years. There are different countersigning officers for theyears 1979,1980,1981,whoagree withtherating of this witness. The confidential reports for the year 1983 once more prepared by Dr. Megalemos, are, however different. She is rated as «Excellent» on five rateable items and «Very Good» on 35 seven, thus making the totalof «VeryGood». Hisversion inevidencebefore mewasthatduringtheperiodof his leave prior to retirement he was approached by the said interested party who complained to him that the confidential 1542 3C.L.R. Knaiv.Republic A.LolxouJ. reports prepared by him were not as he said they were. Later in May, 1985, whilst still on leave prior to retirement he was once moreapproached bythisinterestedpartyandherhusband andthe latter asked him to meet them outside the office of the Public 5 Service Commission inorder tosee what they could do with the reports. He claims to have been told that they should find somebody to change the reports but he refused. Instead he suggestedthathemightwritealettertotheChairman ofthePublic ServiceCommission andsaythatashewasretiring,afterso many 10 yearsthattheyhadtogether, herecommended Mrs.Iacovidou for promotion.Laterhewaspresented withadulytypedletterand he signed it.This letter dated the 21st May, 1985, isappended to a letter dated the3rdJune, 1985,addressed bythe interested party tothe Chairman of the Public Service Commission (Appendix6). 15 Thewitnessalleged thattheinterestedpartyaccused himof being vindictiveandthathewasnotreportingherproperlyashewanted tofavour other officers. He was cross-examined on the contents of a letter of the interested party, dated 25th June 1985 (Appendix 8) and he 20 denied that as she claimed therein the confidential reports changedafter 1982because hewantedtotakerevengeonher.He saidthatthecontentsoftheletterofthe21stMay,1985,weretrue but exaggerated and that he did it in order to help her with her promotion. He also said that he was not approached by Mr. 25 Markides astothe contentsof the confidential reports. Ishallnotdealwiththelengthycross-examination ofthiswitness and the answershe gave,norisitnecessary forme to pronounce on the allegations made in the course of the cross-examination that he changed hisratingon her inorder to favour another lady 30 anaesthesiologist, workingunder himatthesame timebutwhoin any event isnot the applicant. Itisan undeniable fact that there wasasudden changeintheratingoftheinterestedpartyforwhich nosatisfactory explanation hasbeen giventomethatmightjustify it. 35 The interested party and her husband also gave evidence and both gave a different version. They claimed that it was Dr. Megalemos who visited them at their home with a handwritten letterexplainingthathe wantedtomakeamendsforthe reporting he had done on her, which might affect her promotion. 1543 A. L o i z o u J . Knai v. Republic
(1987)Itisunfortur.ate thai D1 ' legalemos has contradicted so much himself by his own conflicting statements that has rendered his testimony unacceptable I can orly saythat he hasnot impressed me with Us conduct Needless to say that the respondent Commission directed its mind on the issue and in their minutes 5 they devoted a whole paragraph on thischange of rating l"hefirstground ofLawrelied uponbytheapplicant isthatthere has been a senous viola ion of form or procedure by the leakage of the contents of certe.n confidential reports of the interested party, after same had Deen sent to the Director of Medical 10 Services Itwas argued that itmade no difference through whom this leakage occurred but that itdestroyed the conectness of the procedure and being of amatenal natureitaffected thesubjudice decision subsequently taken which consequently should be annulled Itwasurged thatthe onlyinstancesforwhichcommunicationof the contents of a confidential report to the officer affected is permissible is (a) under section 45
(4)of the Public Service Law, 1967, which provides that the person prepanng a confidential report in which an officer is cnticised for negligence, failures or 20 improper behaviour in the performance of his duties must communicate to the officer concerned that part of the report and (b)under the Regulatory Ordersmade bythe Council of Ministers under circular No 491 (file No 619/61/111)the rating ofan officer iscommunicated tohimonlywhen heisdescnbed as«average»or 25 «insufficient» These two provisions clearly cast a duty on the appropnate officer to communicate1 to the officer concerned the contents of whatmaybedescnbed asanadversereport Thisimplicitlycarnes the element of authonsation but it does not take the case any 30 further The gist of the issue before me iswhether the knowledge ofthecontentsofaconfidential reportfrom what ever source-and in any event such knowledge was denved not from the Public Service Commission or its officers-invalidates the proceedings and the decision reached therein Inmyviewthiscannot be so as 35 the Commission cannot be found atfault regardingthe procedure followed or mthe discharge of its duties under the Law and the exerciseof itsdiscretionary powers Whatitdid inthepresent case in consequer'-e of the complaint of the interested party was to 1544 15 3C.L.R. Knaiv. Republic A. Loizou J carry out an inquiry into the matter complained of This ground therefore fails This bnngs me to the second ground of law namely that there hasbeen a matenal violation of form orprocedure bythe placing 5 before the respondent Commission of the «letters of recommendations» as they were descnbed by counsel for the applicant of three members of the departmental Board, as under section 44 of the Lawnosuch procedure isprovided forand that even if it was considered that the necessary inquiry was 10 permissible inrespect of thecomplaint oftheinterested party,yet these three «letters of recommendation» were not given for the purposesoftheinquirybutfortheusewhenever needed andtheir submission to the respondent Commission constituted an improper interference with its functions of a matenal nature as 15 they were indeed as it is claimed taken into consideration and affected the result of theadministrative process Asithasalreadybeen mentioned earlier inthisjudgment these letterswere appended tothe letters(Appendices6and 7)that the interested party addressed to the respondent Commission by 20 which she complained about the correctness of the confidential reports and they were not mere letters of recommendation that were forwarded totherespondent Commission bythemselvesbut tobe usedforthepurposesofaninquiryintohprallegationsabout thereport Assuchtheyoffended nopnncipleofLaw Thisground 25 of Lawalso fails The third ground is that the respondent Commission had no competence to order an inquiry into the allegations of the interested party as neither the Law nor the Regulatory Ordeis provide for such an inquiry itself being a matter within its own j(J competence and not to ask the Director of the Department ot MedicalServices who had no competence inthe matter In my view the respondent Commission had a duty to inquire intothe allegations of vindictivenessand unfairness prompted by personal reasons asclaimed bythe interested partyregarding the 35 ratingofherintheconfidential reportsandsolongasitearnedout a proper inquiry in the circumstances Isee no reasci why they should notbnng inalsothe Directorof MedicalServiceswhowas both the countersigning officer on these reports and tfw Headof the Department Itiswrong to assert that the inquiry was earned 40 out by the Director of Medical Services Far from it The inquiry 1545 A.LolzouJ. Knaiv. Republic
(1987)was carried out bytherespondent Commission which thought fit tobringcertain matterstohisknowledge.Hewasaskedtoexpress his views regarding the allegations contained in the letter of the interested party (seeAppendix9).Thisinquirywasnecessitatedby the conduct of Dr. Megalemos, the reporting officer. Had the respondent Commission turned a deaf ear Ican hardly see how the sub judice decision taken in such circumstances would have been found untenable. 5 The fourth ground of law relied upon by the applicant is connected with the third one in the sense that the inquiry, it is 10 claimed,wasnotsufficient fortheascertainment oftherealfacts,as the Director of MedicalServices, asper hisletterofthe 26th June 1985 (Appendix 11) never examined the circumstances under which Dr.Megalemossigned the letterofthe21stMay, 1985,and never inquired intothe conflict between the contents ofthe letter 15 and theallegation oftheinterestedpartythatDr.Megalemosacted out of personal and vindictive reasons; that the respondent Commission never asked the Director of Medical Services as to why he countersigned the three confidential reports without objection or comment, obviously agreeing with their contents, 20 and that there wasnevergiventoDr.Megalemosthe opportunity togive hisversion on hisalleged confession orrepentance which he made to the interested party and so the respondent Commission acted onfactswhichwereunsafe andwhich affected the result of the administrative process. 25 itisclear from the documentsalready referred tointhe relevant minute of the respondent Commission that Dr. Megalemos was asked toexamineandanswerthepertinentquestionsandgivethe necessary explanations forallmatters inissue. Dr. Megalemos had already retired from the service and 30 respondent Commission had before itallthe confidential reports prepared by him in respect of the interested party including his ratings in the confidential rerjorts, the subject of the complaintof the interested party, his subsequent letter, and of course the allegations of the interested party in respect of them. In the 35 circumstances there was nothing in my view which had been omitted tobe done bythe respondent Commission. What isa proper inquiry depends on the circumstancesof each caseandIfindnoreason toconcludethattheonecarriedoutinthe 1546 3C.L.R. Knaiv.Republic A. LoUou J present case was nota proper one This ground therefore should also fail Help in respect of the aforesaid grounds may be derived from the case of HadjiGeorghtou ν The Republic
(1977)3 C LR 35 5 where at ρ 45 Tnantafyllides Ρ , said after dealing with the question of professional fncfion and bias between a public officer and hissupenor that«it'"as uptotheCommission todecide once it knew about the nature of such relations whether any further inquiry intothisaspect was necessary » 10 Thelast ground of law isthatthe applicant is stnkingly supenor to the interested party The burden of establishing stnking supenonty is on the person alleging same In the present case considenng the totality of the circumstances and companng the relevant material from thefile. I have cometothe conclusion that 15 the applicant has failed to discharge the burden of proof that was cast upon her It was reasonably open to the respondent Commission toarnve atthedecision thatitdidwhich was takenin the properexercise of itsdiscretionary powers on thematter For all the above reasons the recourse is dismissed but in the 20 circumstances therewillbe noorder as to costs Recourse dismissed Noorder as to costs 1547