(1987)1987March5 (A LOIZO'J MALACHTOS SAWIDES STYLIANiDES KOURRIS, JJ1 LEONTIS CHRISTOU Appellant-Applicant, ν THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH a)THE COMMANDEROF POLICE. b) THE MINISTER OFINTERIOR, Respondents (Revisional Junsdichon Appeal No 560) Natural Justice —Right to beheard—Not applicable in case of an administrative measure Police Force — Termination ofservices—Enlistment under Reg 7
(1)of the Police (General) Regulations — Dismissalin virtue ofpower given thereunder — Nature of— Viewed in the light of the circumstances of this case,it isan 5 administrative measure, and not a disciplinary sanction —Itfollows that the nght to beheard does notarise The appellant wasenlisted in thePolice Force under Reg 7
(1)* of the Police (General) Regulations 1958 The said regulation provides, inter alia, that the Chief Constable «may,at any time, upon giving the person enlisted 1 0 thirty days' notice in writing,determine the engagement ofsuch person· The appellant's services were terminated for the reasons contained ina letter** dated 9984bythe Chief ofPolice tothe Minister ofIntenor The appellant challengedthevalidity ofhisdismissalbyarecoursetothisCourt on the ground of violation of the Riles of natural justice in that no 1 5 opportunity wasafforded tohim of being heard and defend himself As therecourse was dismissed by aJudge ofthisCourt,thepresent appeal was filed Held, dismissing the appeal, that the very nature ofthe enlistment under Reg 7
(1)and the power to terminate thereunder viewed inthe light ofthe 2 0 Circumstances of this case, give to the sub judice decision the very characteristicofanadministrative measure,in whichcasethenghttobeheard 'Quoted atpp 373-374 post "Quoted atpp 374-375 post 372 3 C.L.R. Christou v. Republic doesnotarise,andnotthatofadisciplinary sanction,inwhichcasetheperson affected thereby would have had tobe given thenght tobe heard Appealdismissed No orderas tocosts ** Casesreferredto HadjtSawav TheRepublic
(1972)3 CL.R 174, Michaelν TheRepublic
(1972)3 C L R 206, Petrouv. TheRepublic
(1980)3 CLR 203, Chnstodoulou ν TheRepublic(\968) 3 C LR 603 10 Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment of aJudge of the SupremeCourt of Cyprus (Demetriades, J.) given on the 8th February, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No.344/84)* whereby appellant's recourse against the decision of the respondents to terminate 15 his engagement inthe Police Force was dismissed. P.Angelides,for theappellant. N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 20 A. LOIZOUJ. read the following judgment of the Court.The appellant was enlisted in the Police Force on the 27th October 1981, under the provisions of Regulation 7
(1)of the Police (General) Regulations, 1958 which reads as follows: 25 30 «7.-(l) Notwithstanding anything in regulation 5 of these Regulations contained and subject to the provisions herein after contained, the Chief Constable may, at his discretion, enlist a person as a constable for an initial period not exceeding threeyears but,attheexpiration of thatperiod,the person enlisted may, ifhe hasgiven satisfactory service andif hisservicesarefurther requiredby theChief Constable,upon giving three months' previous notice in writing to the Chief Constable,optfor re-engagement for anotherlike period: Provided thatthe Chief Constable may, atany time,upon giving the person enlisted thirty days' notice in writing, 'Reportedtn
(1986)3CLR 89 373 A.LoIzouJ. Christou v. Republic
(1987)determine the engagement of such person.» The enlistment was for an initial period of three years after he was informed andsigned adeclarationof acceptanceof theterms contained in a noticepursuant to Regulation 5(h)of the aforesaid Regulations. 5 The circumstances leading to and constituting the grounds of the terminationof the engagement of theappellant's services are containedintheletterdatedthe9thApril 1984, whichtheChiefof Police addressed to the Minister seeking the latter's approval undersection 13,subsections 2 and3 of thePoliceLaw, Cap.285 10 as amended.The said letterreads as follows: •May I please have the approval of the Minister so as to proceed to the termination of the services of the abovenamed pursuant to Regulation 7
(1)of the Police (General) Regulations for reasons of insufficiency and unfitness, namely: 15
(1)This Constable is posted in the Protective Security Services of the Police Headquarters. He was enlisted on 27.10.81andwas posted atDepartmentΒ(Force workshop) having attended the preliminary course of lessons of a 20 duration of 3 weeks.
(2)On9.3.83there was imposed onhimthepunishmentof the suspension of his increment for unbecoming conduct namely for stealing a caravan.
(3)On 7.9.83 he was convicted by the District Court of 25 Nicosia to a fine and suspension of hisdrivinglicence for 6 months after he had admitted offences for negligent driving of avehicle anddrivingwithoutacertificate ofinsurance. For this conviction of his he appeared before a disciplinary Tribunal and therewas imposed on hima fine of £8. 30
(4)On 30.6.83 he was convicted by adisciplinary Tribunal for absence from duty withoutleave andtherewas imposed on hima fine 4 days' wages.
(5)On 18.11.83 there was imposed by the disciplinary Tribunal a sentence of £18, - fine for (i> improperbehaviour 35 374 3 C.L.H. Christouv. Republic A. Loizou J . towards InspectorΒMr.Serdaris and(ii)absence from duty without leave. 5 10
(6)Between 19.7.83 -14.9.83 heobtainedvarious goods by false pretences (he issued cheques without having funds to meet them) in all 6 instances for which he had been prosecuted disciplinarily and there was imposed on him a sentence of 10 days' wages fine. 2. Itis obvious thatthegeneral conductof the said constable is incompatible with thestatus of a Policeman and inviewof the aforesaid negative data his further stay in the Force is considered aimless and injurious.» Upon the Minister of Interiorgiving his approval the appellant was notified by letter dated the 19th April 1984, of thesub judice decision in which he was informed that by virtue of the powers 15 vested intheChief of Policeundertheaforementioned Regulation and the approval of the Minister of Interior his services were terminated and he was as from the 24th April, 1984 tobe on 42 daysearnedleaveandthathehadtodeliver totheGeneralStores of theHeadquartersof theGovernmentpropertywhich hadbeen 20 issued tohim. As against the said sub judice decision the applicant filed a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution seeking its annulmentonanumberofgroundswhich have beendealtwith by thelearnedtrialJudge inhisjudgmentreportedin
(1986)3 C.L.R. 25 p.89 as against which thepresent appeal was filed. Thesole ground uponwhich same hasbeen argued before usis that in accordance with the rules of naturaljustice the appellant should have been afforded the opportunity of being heard and defend himself,thesubjudiceterminationofhisservicesnot being 30 amere administrative measure buta disciplinary punishment. Insupport of thisground learned counsel for theappellant has referred us to the cases of HadjlSawa v. The Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 174; Michael v. The Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 206 and Petrou v. TheRepublic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 203. 35 Inourview all the aforesaid cases and those relied therein are 375 A.LoizouJ. Chriatouv. Republic
(1987)distinguishable asweare concerned inthepresent case,not with disciplinary proceedings andsanctions but withan administrative measure duly taken under Regulation 7
(1)hereinabove set out and the prescribed therein procedure. AsveryrightlythelearnedtrialJudge didwelikewiseadoptwith 5 approval what washeld in Christodoulou v.The Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R.603atp.610withanalmostidenticalfactual background inwhichitwasconcluded thatinthecircumstancesofthatcasethe termination of that applicant's services did not amount to a disciplinarymeasurebutmerelytotheexerciseofalegitimate right 10 on thepartofthe Chief of Police under theprovisoto Regulation 7 in the sense that the object of the termination of applicants' services was not to punish him (that could have been achieved underthePolice(Discipline)Regulationsbuttoridtheforceaswas hisdutytodo ofa person whowasnot fittobe aconstable. 15 Theverynature oftheenlistmentunder Regulation 7
(1)andthe power to terminate thereunder viewed in the light of the circumstances ofthiscase,nodoubtgivetothesubjudice decision theverycharacteristicof an administrative measure inwhich case the right to be heard does not arise and not that of a disciplinary 20 sanction, in which case the person affected thereby would have had tobe given therighttobe heard. Forallthe above reasons theappeal isdismissed with no order astocosts. Appeal dismissed. No orderastocosts. 376 25