clr/1988/1988_3_1.pdf

(2)—DirectorofPersonnelmade it knownthathedidnotintendtoparticipateinmeetingsoftheE.S.C. concerning disciplinary charges—Failure tosummon himtoattend such a 5 meeting—Effect. ConstitutionalLaw—fair trial (Public hearing)—Constitution, Art. 30.2— 1 Republic v. Hadjieftychiou

(1988)Doesnotapplytodisciplinaryproceedings. European Conventionfor the Protection ofHumanRights—Art. 6

(2)—Does notapplytodisciplinaryproceedings. Disciplinaryproceedings—EducationalOfficers—ThePublicEducationalServiceLaw.10169, section72

(3)andpara.4ofPartIII ofSecond Sched- 5 ule—Whetherproceedingsmustbeheldinpublic. The CertainDisciplinaryOffences(ConductofInvestigationandAdjudication) Law3177, section4

(3),as amended byLaw38177—In thelightofthe amendment, the investigations couldbe conducted by onlyoneofthe members ofthe Investigating Committee. 10 TheCertain Disciplinary Offences (Conduct ofInvestigation andAdjudication) Law3/77, asamended—Actspeformed ata time when the Officer was notamemberoftheservice—Couldbemade theobjectofa disciplinarycharge. • TheCertainDisciplinaryOffences(ConductofInvestigationandAdjudication)15 Laws, 1977to1978(SuspensionofProceedingLaw, 1978,Law57/78)— Indealing with adisciplinarycharge underthesuspendedlaws theCom-. missioncouldnottakeintoconsiderationthepreambletoLaw57/78. ThedisciplinarydecisionoftheE.S.C.wherebytherespondent(applicant)wasfoundguiltyonvariouschargeswasannulledbythePresidentof 20 thisCourtonthegroundthatthemembersofacollectiveorganentitledto participateini*smeetingsmustbeinvitedeveniftheyhavenorighttovote, unless such meetings takeplaceon defined datesfixedandknown toits membersinadvance. Theothercomplaintsoftheapplicantmaybebriefly described asfollows; (a)Failuretoconfer beforepassingdisciplinarysentence, (b)Theproceedingswereheldincamera.Inthisrespect,theapplicant reliedontheexclusionofajournalist,which however,asitwasclaimedby evidence,wasduetolackofspace.Applicant'scontention wassuportedby reference tosection72

(3)ofLaw 10/69,PartIIIofthe2ndSchedulethere- 30 of, section 112oftheCriminalProcedureLaw,Cap. 155andArt.30.2of . theConstitution. 2 25 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou (c)TheInvestigation oughttohavebeenconducted underLaw 10/69 andnot underLaw 3/77.Inanyeventthere hasbeenacontraventionof Law3/77inthattheinvestigationwasconductedbyonlyonememberof theCommittee. 5 10 (d)Failuretosummontheinvestigatingofficer toappearasawitness, contrary tosection 70of Law 10/69,with the result that applicant was unabletoproducehisstatementtotheinvestigating officer. (e)TheE.S.C.hadnocompetenceinthematterasthe"offencescharged relatedtoaperiodoftime,whentheapplicantwasnotamemberoftheservice,hisserviceshavingbeenterminatedongroundsofpublicinterestbeforesuchtime. (0 TheE.S.C. failed totake intoconsideration thepreambletoLaw 57/78. (g)Thedecisionisnotdulyreasoned. 15 20 25 30 Heldjallowing theappeal: (A)The Director of Personnel, whowas, undertheproviso tosection 4

(2)of Law 10/69,entitled toparticipatein the meetings of the Commission without a right to vote, made it clear thathedidnotintendtoparticipateindisciplinaryproceedings. Nodoubtthemembersofacollectiveorgan entitled toparticipatein itsmeetingmustbeinvitedeveniftheyhavenorighttovote,unlesssuch meetingstakeplaceondefineddatesfixedandknowntoitsmembersinadvance. Inthecircumstancesofthiscaseandinthelightofthefollowing facts, namely thattherewasnomachinery tocompel theDirector'sattendance, thathisabsencecouldnotaffect thequorumandthatsolongasthereisa quorum,itisnotnecessary forall membersof thecollectiveorgantoattend,theappealshouldbeallowed. (B) Having allowed the appeal, the Court dealt with the various grounds put forward by theapplicant (respondent) in support of hisrecourseand Held,dismissing therecourse: (a)Theapplicantdidnotsubstantiate thefirstofhisaforesaidcomplaints. (b)Theprovisionsofs.72

(3)ofLaw 10/69andofpara.3ofPartIIIof theSecondScheduleofLaw 10/69donotmeanthatdisciplinaryproceed- 3 Republic v. Hadjieftychiou

(1988)ingsareof thesame character ascriminal proceedings. Art. 30.2of the ConstitutionandArt 6

(2)oftheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionof HumanRightsdonotapplytodisciplinaryproceedings. (c)Section 4

(3)of theaforesaid LawNo.3of 1977wasamendedby Law No. 38of 1977,whereby onlyonemember mightbeappointed to 5 conduct theinvestigations and in this instancea singlemember wasso ap,x)intedinaccordancewithsuchprovisions. <d)Thefactual allegationscontainedinground(d)arenotborneoutby theevidence. (e)Theoffences forwhichhewaschargedwerenotconfined withinthe 10 period,whentheapplicantwasnotamemberof theservice.Though underLawNo.3of 1977itisrequired forapersontobeanofficer (asdefined insection2thereoOinorderthatinvestigationsanddisciplinaryproceedingsmaybetakenagainsthim,itdoesnotemanatefrom thedefinition, undertheaforesaid section 2,of "disciplinaryoffences" thatsuchperson 15 oughttohavebeenanofficer atthetimeofthecommissionbyhimofsuch disciplinary offences. (f) Thecontentsof thepreambleofthelawwerenotfor theappellant Commission toconsiderandeveniftherewascompetenceforthatitwas neitherraisedbytheappellantnoristherethenecessaryfactualbackground 20 for itsexamination. Moreover,Law 57/78didnotalter theprerequisites whichexisted fortheapplication ofLawNo.3 of 1977,northedefinition ofofficer asitappearsinsection2thereof. (g)Thereisnomeritinthelastcontentionoftheapplicant Appealallowed. Recourse dis- 25 missed.Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Christodoulides v.Republic

(1985)3C.L.R.1911; Matsisv.Republic

(1969)3C.L.R. 245; Lambrou v.Republic

(1972)3C.L.R.379; EngelsandOthers -DecisionsandJudgmentsoftheEuropean Court of HumanRights, SeriesA,Vol22,pp. 33-36. 4 30 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment of thePresident of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Triantafyllides, P.) given on the 4th April, 1984 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 314/79)* whereby the 5 decision of the Educational Service Commission by virtue of which therespondent wasfound guilty andpunished disciplinarilywas annulled. A. S.AngelideSy for the appellant. C,Hadjipieras,for the respondent. 10 Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOU,J.read thefollowing judgment of theCourt.The disciplinary decision which the appellant Commission reached against therespondent-applicant bywhichhewasfound guiltyof sixteen disciplinary offences and sentenced accordingly, wasan15 nulled by the learned President of this Court on the ground that "due to the failure to notify the Director of Personnel about the meetings of therespondent Commission inrelation tothe applicant,itscomposition at suchmeetingswas defective". This conclusion was reached because, and that was common 20 ground, "theDirector of Personnel was never notified about and invited tosuchmeetingsbecause with hisconsent ithadbeen arranged that he should notparticipate indisciplinary proceedings before the respondent Commission". This arrangement being found by the learned President tobe "aflagrant contravention of 25 theprovisotosection 4

(2)of thePublicEducational ServiceLaw 1969, (Law No. 10of 1969), amounting to an alteration of the composition of the respondent Commission which could have beeneffected only bytheHouseof Representatives". Thesaidproviso provided then that, "the Director of Educa*Reportedin

(1985)3CLJt. 921 5 A. Loizou, J. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou

(1988)tion,theDirectoroftheDepartmentofPersonneloftheRepublic andtheHeadoftheDepartmentoftheMinistryconcernedareentidedtobepresentatthemeetingsoftheCommissionandexpress theirviewsbutwithoutarighttovote".ByLawNo.53of1979, thepresenceof theDirectoroftheDepartmentofPersonnelwas 5 deleted. Nodoubtthemembersofacollectiveorganentitledtoparticipateinitsmeetingsmustbeinvitedeveniftheyhavenorightto vote,unlesssuchmeetingstakeplaceondefined datesfixed and knowntoitsmembersinadvance.Aviolationofthesetwoalter- 10 nativerequirementsrendersthecompositionofacollectiveorgan defective. Butin thelight of thecircumstancesof thiscase,wedonot, withrespect, agree with thelearned President's approaches the Director of theDepartmentofPersonnel madeitknown that he 15 didnotwishtobeinvitedandtherefore toattendthemeetingsof the respondent Commission at which disciplinary proceedings werebeingconducted.Itwasclearthatthesaidofficer didnotintendtoattend suchproceedingsfortheobviousreasonthatasan administratorhewasnotdirectlyinvolvedashewouldhavenor- 20 mallybeeninthecaseofdeliberationsforappointments,promotionsand otherrelevant mattersregarding thetermsofemployment of educational officers when he would have been in a position toadvise.Thisisclearbytheveryfact oftheexclusion ofthereference tohisoffice intheprovisobytheamendingLaw 25 asalreadymentioned. Moreoverhisabsencecouldnotaffect thequorumoftheCommission asacollectiveorgan,amatterdealtwithbythisCourtin PetrosChristodoulides v.TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R.1911. Norisittaken solongasaquorum exists.Inaddition therewas 30 nomachinerytocompelhisattendance.Forthesereasonstheappealshouldbeallowed. 6 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou A. Loizou, J. Having reached this conclusion we have now toexamine the remaining grounds of Law relied uponin theapplication ascon­ fined by counsel before us, as the learned-President in line with well established authority, having annulled the sub judice deci5 sion ononeground,found it,and rightly so,unnecessary todeal with theremaining grounds. Thefirst groundrelied upononbehalf of therespondentas the applicant in therecourse,hasbeen thattheappellantCommission failed toconfer before passing onhim thedisciplinary sentence. 10 This is not borne out by the evidence adduced and this renders unfounded thecontention of therespondent. The second ground of law is thattherehas been acontraven­ tion of the law andthe Constitutionin as much as thehearing of thecase was held incamera,contrarytosection72

(3)andPart ΠΙ 15 of the2nd Scheduleread inconjunction with Article 30paragraph 2 of theConstitutionand section 112 of theCriminalProcedure Law, Cap. 155. According to section 72

(3)and paragraph 3 of Part III of the dule to the Law, "the hearing of a disciplinary case is con20 duv is far as possible (κατά το δυνατόν), in thesamemanner as thehearing of acriminal case triable summarily". Such provi­ sions as to the procedure tobe followed, however, do notmean that disciplinary proceedings under Law No. 10 of 1969 are of the same characteror natureas criminal proceedings, as any such 25 conclusion would inourview be outof line. Moreover as regards a contravention of Article 30.2 of the Constitution,such Article provides that: 30 "In thedetermination of hiscivil rights andobligations orof any criminal charge against him,every person is entitled toa fair andpublic hearing ..." We believe thattheaforesaid provisions of Article 30.2 which are practically the same as those of Article 6

(2)of the European 7 A. Loizou, J. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou

(1988)Convention onHuman Rightsdonot apply todisciplinaryproceeding.Thematter wasconsidered in thecaseofMatsis v.Republic

(1969)3C.L.R.245atpage270,whereitwasstatedthat: "...theprovisionsofourArticle30.2,whicharepractically thesameasthoseofArticle6

(1)oftheEuropeanConvention 5 ofHumanRights,of 1950,applyonlytothedeterminationof 'civilrightsandobligationsorofanycriminalcharge',andliabilityunderafiscallaw,whichisabranchofpubliclaw,appearsnottocomewithintheambitofArticle6

(1)oftheConvention,and,consequently,notwithintheambitofourArticle 10 30.2,either. (See'XagainstBelgium'decided bytheEuropean Commission ofHuman Rights on the 1stOctober, 1965, andreported intherelevant 1965YearBook,No.8atp.282, andparticularly atp.312)." In the case of Lambrou v. Republic

(1972)3 C.L.R. 379, 15 wheretheservicesoftheapplicantwereterminatedbytheEducational ServiceCommitteefordisciplinaryreasons,itwasheldat pp.386-387: "Adisciplinary chargeisnot,ofcourse,acriminalcharge: also, in view of the decisionsof theCommission of Human 20 Rightsof the CouncilofEuropeincases423/58(seeCollection ofDecisions of theCommissionNo.1)and 1931/63(see Yearbookof theEuropean ConventionofHumanRightsNo. 7atp.212),Iamof theopinionthatthedisciplinaryproceedingsagainstthepresentapplicantwerenotproceedingsforthe 25 determination ofanycivilrightsorobligationsofhis". From aperusaloftherelevantcasesanddecisionsintheDigest of Strasbourg CaseLaw,relating totheEuropean Convention onHumanRights,Vol.2,ittranspiresthatArticle6

(1)does not apply todisciplinary proceedings.With regard however, to 30 thedistinction between theterms"Criminalcharge"and"disciplinaryproceedings"wemayrefertothecaseofEngelsandOthers, Decisions and Judgments of the European Court of Human RightsSeriesA, Vol.22pp.33-36. 8 3C.L.R. Republicv.Hadjieftychiou A.Loizou,J. Thisgroundmustthereforebedismissed. Thenextgroundputforward isthattheinvestigationsagainst therespondent/applicant, wereconducted contrarytosections4 and5oftheCertainDisciplinaryOffences (ConductofInvestiga5 tionandAdjudication) Law, 1977,(LawNo.3of 1977)andsections 70 and 72 of the Public Educational Service Law 1969, (LawNo. 10of 1969).Theinvestigation,itwasargued,oughtto havebeenproperlyconducted underLawNo. 10of 1969butin anyevent,theprovisionsofLawNo,3of 1977underwhichthe 10 investigation waspurported tohavebeenmadehadnotbeenfollowedandtherefore suchinvestigation wasnullandvoidbecause itwaswronglyconducted byonlyonememberof theinvestigatingCommitteewhoaloneconductedtheinvestigationandissued thedecision. 15 Section 4

(3)of the aforesaid Law No.3/1977wasamended on the24th June, 1977byLaw No.38of 1977,whereby only onemembermightbeappointedtoconducttheinvestigationsand inthisinstanceasinglememberwassoappointedinaccordance with suchprovisions.Hisrelevant reportwas submittedonthe 20 28thJanuary 1978.Subsequentlyon27thOctober 1978,theCertainDisciplinary Offences (ConductofInvestigationandAdjudication) Laws 1977 to 1978 (Suspension of Proceedings) Law, 1978,(LawNo.57of 1978),cameintoforce wherebyLawNo.3 of 1977, as amended, was suspended as from 15th July 1978, 25 theeffect ofwhichwastotransferallcasestotheMinisterofJustice, tobesentbyhimtotheCouncilofMinisterswhichmayin turntransfer themtotheappropriateauthorities,inthisinstance theappropriateauthoritybeingtheMinistryofEducation,which thereafter shouldfollow theprocedureasisprovidedbyLawNo. 30 10of 1969. Consequendywefind thattheinvestigation wasproperlyconducted and in accordance with the Law.This ground therefore fails. Itwasnextarguedthattheappellant Commission actedcon9 A. Loizoii, J. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou

(1988)trarytotheprovisionsof sections70ofLawNo. 10of 1969and paragraphs4and5ofPartIofthesecondScheduletheretointhat itfailed tosummontheinvestigatingofficer toappearbefore itas a witnessor,even though hewassummoned bytherespondent, he failed toappear, andtherespondent wasthusunable topro- • 5 duceinevidencehisstatementdated 16thJanuary 1978givento theaforesaid investigatingofficer. Furthermoreitwascontended, thatnotalldocumentshadbeensubmittedtotheappellantCommissionbytheinvestigating officer. Thefactual allegationscontainedinthisgroundarenotborne 10 out bytheevidence.Itisclearthatallthethewritten statements takenbytheinvestigatingofficer, ofwitnesses,aswellasthatof therespondentofthe 16thJanuary 1978,wereputbefore theappellant Commission togetherwith thereportoftheinvestigating officer datedthe28thJanuary 1978.Thisgroundisconsequentiy 15 dismissed. Thenextargumentoftherespondentisthatthesubjudicedecisionwastakenbyanorganhavingnocompetenceonthematter andistherefore wronginlaw,asattherelevanttimetherespondent wasnotaneducational officer becausehisservicesassuch 20 hadbeenterminated bytheCouncilofMinistersinthepublicinterestonthe 1stJuly 1974.Though,heargued,suchtermination was Subsequently revoked on the2nd August 1974,all alleged offences had taken place during the period of 1st July 1974 to , 2ndAugust 1974. In the first place it transpires from thedocuments before us that the offences for which hewas charged were not confined withintheaforesaid period,butalsotookplacepriortoand after these dates.Secondly, though underLawNo.3of 1977itisrequiredfor apersontobeanofficer (asdefined insection2there- 30 of) inorder thatinvestigation anddisciplinary proceedingsmay • betaken against him,itdoesnot,inourview,emanatefrom the definition, undertheaforesaid section2,of "disciplinary offence" that suchpersonoughttohavebeenanofficer atthetimeof the commission byhimof such disciplinary offences, asitdoesnot 35 10 25 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Hadjieftychiou A. Loizou, J. precludefrombeing charged persons who becamesuch officers asdefined thereinsubsequent tothecommittal of thedisciplinary offences. Thisargumentthereforealsofails. Nordowe see any meritinthenext argumentof therespon5 dent/applicantthatthesubjudice decision is contrary tolaw in thattheappellantCommissionfailedtotakeintoconsideration the Preamble of Law No. 57 of 1978,which refers to"unrepenting harmful elements" (αμετανόητα επιβλαβήστοιχεία),there­ spondentnotbeing such. 10 Itisclearthatthecontentsof thePreambleofthelaw were not for theappellant Commission toconsider andeven if there was competencefor thatit was neitherraised by theappellantnoris therethenecessary factual backgroundfor itsexamination. More­ over asalready statedabove,thattheproceedings against the re15 spondentweretakenunderLaw No.3of 1977,which appliedto all officers as defined in section 2 thereof and Law No.57 of 1978 by virtueof which suchproceedings weretransferred to the appellantCommitteedoesnotaltertheprerequisites whichexisted for theapplicationofLaw No.3of 1977,northedefinition of of20 ficer as it appearsin section 2thereof.Thiscontention wemust alsodismiss. 1 Finallywefindnomeritintheargumentthatthesubjudicede­ cision is notduly reasonedasamplereasoningappearsinthede­ cision itself which inany casecanalsobe supplementedby the 25 material, inthefileof theproceedingsagainstdierespondent, Forthereasons statedabovetheappealof theappellant Com­ mission is allowed,butthegroundsof law relied uponinthe ap­ plicationof thepresentrespondent/applicantintherecoursefail andareherebydismissed. 30 in the circumstances,however, there will be noorder as to costs. Appealallowed. Noorderas to costs 11