(1988)1988June 15 [SAWIDES,J.] DMTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION GEORGHIOSK.GEORGHIOU, Applicant^ v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS, Respondent. (CaseNo. 141185). Reasoningof anadministrativeact—Itmaybederivedorsupplementedbythe materialinthefilesof theadministration. NaturalJustice—Opportunityofbeingheard—itshouldbegivenwhenasanc tion is to be imposed—Applicationfor retirement benefits by aformer memberof thePoliceForce who hadbeenearlierrequiredtoresign—/n 5 fact,applicantwasgivensuchanopportunity,ashesubmitteda lettercon tainingthereasonsinsupportof hisrequest. Applicant,whowas, atthetime,amemberof thePoliceForce,pleaded guilty todisciplinary charges and was, as a result, "required toresign". Thisdecisionwas taken by theMinisterof Interiorinreviewingthepenalty 1Ο imposedby theDisciplinary Committee.Applicant'sappealtotheCouncil of Ministerswasdismissed. Theapplicant,then,appliedforretirementben efits underRegulation45of thePolice(Discipline)Regulations.TheCoun cilofMinistersturneddowntheapplication.Therelevantminutestatesthat ittookintoconsideration "everythingthatwasmentionedinthemeetingand 15 AppendixCof thesubmission".A letterof theChiefof Police,which was before theCouncil,explainedthehistoryof thecaseandcontainedasum maryof factsputforward by applicant's counselinsupportof theapplica tion. ThesubmissiontotheCouncilby theMinisterof Interiordidnotcon tainanyrecommendationregardingthemerits. 20 1230 3 CX.R. Georghiou v. Republic Counselforapplicantsubmittedthat: (a)Thedecisionlacksduereasoninginthatthereisnoexplanationasto "whatwassaidbeforetheCouncil." 5 (B)Participation oftheMinisterofInterior,who,inviewof hisdecisiontorequireapplicanttoresign,shouldbeconsideredasbiased. (c)Failuretoafford applicantanopportunityofbeingheard. 10 Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Reasoningmaybederivedfrom the fileofthecase.InthepresentcasetheCouncilofMinistershadbeforeitthe recordoftheapplicantandeveryothernecessarymaterialwhichwascontainedintheproposaloftheMinisterofInteriortowhichreference ismade inthedecisionoftheCouncilofMinistersfromwhichthereasoningofthe decisionmaybederived.
(2)TheMinisterofInteriordidnotmakeanyrecommendation.Applicantfailedtoprovebias. 15 20 2<
(3)Theopportunity tobe heard mustbeafforded incases wherea sanctionistobeimposed.Inanyevent,theapplicanthadinthiscasesuch anopportunity,ashehadsubmittedanapplicationthroughhisadvocatesto theCouncilofMinisterswhereinhehadtheopportunitytostateallrelevant andnecessary mattersinsupportofhiscase.Furthermorehisrequestand thereasonsadvancedarerepeatedbothintheletteroftheChiefofPoliceto theDirector-GeneralandtheMinisterofInteriorandthesubmissiononthe .Minister. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Georghiouv.TheRepublic
(1987)3CLR. 400; Sawav.The CouncilofMinisters
(1984)3C.L.R. 285; Loucav.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.1640. Recourse. 30 Recourse against thedismissalof applicant's application for 1231 Georghiou v. Republic
(1988)retirement benefits on his being required toresign from thePolice Force. L. Clerides, for the applicant. A. Vladimirou, for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. 5 SAVV1DES J. read thefollowing judgment. The applicant by this recourse challenges underparagraph Β thedecision of there spondent communicated to him by letter dated 26th January, 1985, whereby his application for retirementbenefits onhis being required toresign was dismissed. 10 The recourse was originally challenging also, underparagraph A, the decision of therespondent communicated to him by letter dated 21th November, 1984, whereby the respondent affirmed the decision of the Minister of Interior imposing upon him the sentence of requirement toresign from thePoliceForceas aresult 15 of disciplinary proceedings against theapplicant. Prayer "A" however, was dismissed by meafter hearing of the preliminary legal objections raised by counsel for respondent in this recourse. See, in this respect, Georghiou v. The Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 400. Indelivering my judgment in thesaid case 20 I came totheconclusion thatprayer "A" of therecourse should be dismissed whereas thepreliminary objection as to thevalidity of prayer "B", the one under consideration, failed and directions were given for therecourse toproceed for hearing on prayer "B" on its merits. The facts of thecase are briefly as follows: On the22nd December, 1983, theMinister of Interiorappoint ed a disciplinary committee underregulations 10A and 32 of the Police (Discipline) Regulations totry disciplinary charges against the applicant consisting of (
- a)abuse of trust, (b)corruption and 30 1232 25 3 C.L.R. .Georghiou ,y. Republic ^(
- c)improperconduct.- • , Savvides J., Γ;Μ , , ^ Ί . *;ϊτ. * Sl ^ _r '·• On the 25th June, 1984, after the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of corruption thedisciplinary-committee convictedand sentencedhimtodeferment ofincrement until the 1stNovember, 1985.Thesaidconviction was reviewed by. the Ministerof Interi or according toregulation 36 of thePolice (Discipline) Regula tions,who.increased thesentencetothatof requirement toresign. The decision,of the Minister of Interior-dated 6th,September,-. 1984, was communicated to the applicant on 10th September, 1984, who thenappealed totheCouncil of Ministers. 5 10 ι The applicant's1appeal^as considered on the lstj November, 1984,by the .Council of Ministers which decided to affirm the sentence imposed by the Minister of«Interior and dismissed the· appeal. ,,·,-• 15 ~e Thedecision of the Councilof Ministers was communicatedto the applicant by,letter dated 21st November, 1984. On26thNovember, 1984j theapplicant.through.his counsel addressed-ajletter totheMinister oflnterior requesting thegrant to hinvofpension andretirementbenefits on thebasisof his yearsof servicein the,PoliceForce.J h e applicant's request ,was embodied.in apro posal of the Minister of,Interior-to the Council, of Ministers, which examined it at: its,meeting of 17th January, 1985, andde cided toreject same.Thedecision of the.CouncilofjMinisters was communicated totheapplicantby letterdated26th January, 1985, signedby theDirector-Generalof the Ministry of Interior. -, ;>' ' •• ; , . ( w , * ' * 20 L ' - i n - . ' . tiV! b ' . ' : • · - : ' . ' l· j J h.-j\'* Counsel for applicant advanced.thefollowing legal grounds in support of his case: 30· ( \(
- a)The .letterof the DirectorrGeneral of the Ministry of Interior dated 26th January; 1985,(as.well as^thedecision of theCouncil, of Ministers dated 17th January,,1985 are,not duly reasoned as the first one.contains noreasoning and the.second^necontainsj insufficient reasoning by> the mererecording in jhe·minutes,that, "the Council,hastaken impconsiderationeverything that,was said \ 1233 \ \ SavvidesJ. Georghiou v.Republic
(1988)at the meeting"without explaining what werethematterstaken intoconsideration. (b)Theparticipation oftheMinisterofInterior,whomadethe proposaltotheCouncilofMinisters,atthemeetingatwhichthe subjudicedecisionwastakenviolatedtherulesofnaturaljustice. 5 (c)TheCouncilof Ministersbeforereachingitsdecisiondid notafford theopportunity totheapplicanttobeheard,inviolation oftherulesofnaturaljustice. Beforeembarkingonthelegalargumentsadvancedbycounsel for applicant Ifind itnecessary toreproduce thedecisionof the 10 respondent as contained in the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the 17thJanuary, 1985,which readsas follows: "TheCouncil considered theapplication ofex-policeconstable 3749,Georghios K.Georghiou, uponwhom thedisci- 15 plinary punishmentofrequirementtoresignwasimposed,for thepayment tohim in accordance with Regulation 45of the Police (Discipline) Regulations and s.7 of thePensionsLaw, Cap. 311andLaws 17/60,9and 18/67,51and 119/68,9/71, 65/73,42/76,38/79,2and39/81ofretirementbenefits which 20 heearned onthe basisofhisactual serviceandhavingtaken intoconsideration everythingthatwasmentioned atthemeetingaswellasthecontentsofAppendix"C"ofthesubmission (letter of the Chief of Police to the Director-General of the Ministry ofInteriordated 17thDecember, 1984)decidedthat 25 hisapplication shouldnotbeaccepted." ThecontentsoftheletteroftheChiefofPolicetotheDirectorGeneral of theMinistryof Interiordated 17thDecember, 1984, which wasbefore theCouncilofMinisterswhenconsideringthe subjudicedecision are settingoutthehistoryoftheapplicantin 30 'thePoliceForce,theoffences whichhecommittedandinrespect ofwhichdisciplinaryproceedingswereinstitutedagainsthim,the historyof suchproceedingswhichledtothesentenceofrequire1234 / / / 3C.L.R. s Georghiouv. Republict SavvidesJ., menttoresign from thePoliceForce,a,summary of thefacts set outinthe,applicationvofhiscounselrequestingfor thepaymentof retirementbenefits^hisfamily andfinancial circumstancesaswell astheamountof pensionandgratuity whichtheapplicantwould have been entitled to, in case.of a favourable decision by the Councilof Ministers. * , . · , . , TheproposaloftheMinistryof Interiorto,the.CouncilofMin isters whichwas also anotherdocumenttakenintoconsideration inthecourseofdeliberationsby the Councilof Ministersdoes not JO containanythingsuggestingthat^theMinisterof Interiorhasex; , pressed any,view against such application.Suchproposal makes reference,extensively tothecontentsoftheapplication.ofcounsel for applicant,it givesAhefamily andfinancial circumstancesof theapplicant,thepoor conditionof health.of his wife and(after ,c makingreference toRegulation45of thePolice(Discipline) Reg ulationsinconjunction with thePensionsLaw concludes asfol? lows: 20 Ϊ 25 4. If the retired police.constable had retired on-grounds of healthhewould havebeenentitled, onthebasisof hisservice,to apensionof£572.76 annually^andagratuityof £2,386.52., 5.TheMinisterof.Interiorwho.willintroducethesubjectrwill invite theCouncil ofMinisterstodecideinaccordancewith.Regu lation 45 of the Police,(Discipline)Regulations,and s.7 of the Pensions Law, the grant or not of pension/gratuity to exconstable 3749GeqrghiosK. Georghiou^ , , / : i -,._, Regulation 45 of thePolice (Discipline) Regulations
(19581977)readsasfollows^ , . ,. , , <> >, , 30 , "45.Εις περίπτωσιν καθ' ηνηδυνάμει,των παρόντων - Κανονισμώνεπιβληθείσα εις μέλος της Δυνάμεως ποινή δια πειθαρχικόν αδίκημα είναιητηςυπό,ταυ εκδικασαντοςτοαδίκημααπαιτήσεωςπροςτομέλοςδιαπαραίτησιν, .1235 SavvidesJ. Georghiou v.Republic
(1988)ησυνεπείατηςτοιαύτης ποινήςπαραίτησις τουμέλουςθα θεωρήται,δια σκοπούς συντάξεως,ωςτερματισμόςυπηρε σίας προςτοδημόσιονσυμφέρον καιδενθααποστερή το μέλος του δικαιώματος τουδιασύνταξιν χορηγουμένην επίτηςρηθείσηςβάσεωςτουτερματισμούυπηρεσίαςπρος ^ τοδημόσιον συμφέρον." TheEnglish translationis asfollows: ("Incase thepunishmentimposed by virtueof theseRegu lationson amemberof theForcefor adisciplinary offence is theoneofrequirementtoresign,theresignationof themember 10 following such punishment will, for pension purposes, be consideredasterminationof servicesinthepublicinterestand 'will notdeprive thememberof hisrighttoapensiongranted on thesaid basisof terminationof servicesinthepublicinterest.") ' S.7 of thePensionsLaw, Cap.31.1reads as follows: "7. Where anofficer's service is terminatedontheground that,having regard totheconditionsof thepublic service,the usefulness of theofficer theretoandalltheothercircumstances of thecase,suchterminationisdesirable inthepublicinterest, 20 andapension,gratuity orotherallowancecannototherwise be ' granted tohimundertheprovisions of thisLaw, the Council of Ministers may,if it thinksfit, grant such pension,gratuity orotherallowance as itthinksjust andproper,notexceeding in amountthatfor which theofficer would beeligibleif here- 25 tired from thepublic serviceinthecircumstancesdescribedin paragraph (e)of section6of thisLaw." The question whether theCouncilof Ministers has adiscre tion underthisregulation todecidewhethertograntornotapen sionoranyotherretirementbenefits topolicemen whohavebeen 30 required toresign as aresult of disciplinary proceedings against them hasnotbeenraised intheseproceedings,veryrightlyin my view,inviewof thedecision of thisCourtinSawa v.TheCoun1236 15 3 C.L.R. Georghiou v. Republic Savvides J. \ :J cilofMinisters
(1984)3C.L.R.285inwhichitwas heldthatthe right toapensionunderregulation 45isnot'absbluteandunquali-r fied andthat trieCouncilof Ministershasadiscretiononthemat-; tef unaersV7of Cap:,3h:-' : " *' Ml " ' ' ' *' :'*" Λ ' l / ' : " 5 Having narrated theTactsof thecase and trie'relevant'provi sion'sinthePoliceRegulations'ahdthelaw I'comenow;to'c'onsi&- * er'thefirsfground raised by'counsel for applicanttotrieeffect that thereis lackofduereasoning. " ' " **' ' : j '*' V Itis wellsettledby a'seriesof casesof thisCourtthat reason10 ing of an administratiye'decision may bederived from andsup plementedby theadministrativefiles aswell. Useful referencein thisrespectmaybemade tothedecisionof theFullBenchin the' case of Louca v.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R:, 1640 in which atp. 1645itwasrheld'asfollows: '*' l V " V M - rt ; ''' , J < : " r " 1 ' / : · .. t-< .. 15 2(Jr •• • .'· y ' j •. ..,; . '•- . ,..< r - '.' "Cominghowtothe'submission thatthesubjudicedecision was not duly reasoned.Duereasoning is anessentialrequire mentfor an'administrativedecision;butduereasoningcanbe sufficiently derived from theadministrativefileaswell. In'this particular case theCouncilof Ministers had before them the '"recordof theappellantandeveryothernecessary material and in'particular the 'proposal.' bAhe''Minister of Interiordated '1811.82to'theCouncilwhich is soexplicit thatitmay afford cbyitselftrieduereasoningrequired." ' '"a • ιone;.* <• ι '.ο ·..ι <r 25 30 ^ ,\; /-••" -- .y . · '. ·-, κ. r.'•!.'- In'thepresentcase trieCouhcil'of Ministers'had'before'it'the recordof the'applicantandeveryothernecessary'material which was containedirrtheproposal oftheMinisterof Interiortowhich reference ismade inthe.decisionof theCouncil of Ministersfrom which,thereasoning of thedecision may be derived.Therefore, !1 thesubniissioh of counsel'inuSisrespectfails.^ ' ^ . V * .'C : r • J. ' Concerningthesecond ground of law argued by counsel for applicant that'theparticipation of theMinister of Interiorwho madetheproposalto'theCouncilofMinisters.rendersthesub'judicedecisionvoidas'having beentakeninviolationof therules'of 1237 SavvidesJ. Georghiou v.Republic
(1988)naturaljustice,Ifind nomeritintheargumentinsupportthereof. The Ministerof Interior had nottaken anydecision himself nor didhemakeanyrecommendationfortherejection oftheapplicationoftheapplicantinwhichcase hecouldbeconsideredasbeing biassedorprejudiced againsttheapplicant.Onthecontrary 5 afterputtingallnecessaryfacts beforetheCouncilofMinisters,in allfairness totheapplicant heconcluded bysuggesting thatthe matterofgrantingornotapensionandotherbenefits totheapplicantwasamatterwithintheexclusivediscretionoftheCouncilof Ministers.Thereisnothinginthesaidproposal whichisprejudi- ,« cial totheapplicantorprejudging thedecisionoftheMinisterof Interiorandtheapplicantonwhomtheburdenliesfailed toprove anybiasonthepartoftheMinisterofInteriorinthisrespect. Ifinallycome toconsider thelast submission of counsel for theapplicantthattherewasviolationoftherulesofnaturaljustice ,,inthattheapplicant wasnotafforded anopportunitytobeheard. Theanswertothissubmission maybefound inthefollowingdictain thecaseofLoucav.TheRepublic (supra)atpp.1645-1646 whichIfullyadopt: "Inconnection withthesubmissionthattherulesofnatural 2 n justicehavebeen violated bytheCouncilof Ministersasthe applicant wasnotheard:In thefirst placegenerallyspeaking therightof audience can beinvoked only incases wherea sanction is to be imposed. Thus no disciplinary sanction shouldbeimposedwithoutthepublicofficer concernedbeing ^5 giventheopportunitytobeheardbefore thesanctioninquestion is decided upon. (HadjiSinnos v. Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R.451).Rulesofnaturaljusticearealsoapplicabletoreview procedure under regulation 18
(4)of thePolice (Discipline) Regulations 1958 (Orphanides v. Republic
(1968)3 30 C.L.R. 385). Ofcourseinthepresentcasewemustnotloosesightofthe fact thattheappellant wasnotontrialondisciplinarycharges; theCouncilofMinisterswassimplyexamininghisrequestfor pension;andfurther thatevensohehadtheopportunityofbe- 35 1238 3 C.L.R. Georghiou v. Republic SavvidesJ. ingheardashesubmittedanapplicationtotheCouncilthrough his advocate wherein hehadtheopportunitytostate whatever heconsidered relevant andnecessary tostate.Wefindno merit onthiscomplaintwhichisdismissedaswell." 5 10 15 20 Inthe'presentcase as inLouca'case theapplicanthadtheop portunity of being heard as he-had submitted an application throughhisadvocates'to theCouncilof Ministers wherein he had theopportunitytostateallrelevant andnecessary mattersinsup port of his case. Furthermore his request and the reasons advanced arerepeated bothintheletterof theChief of Policeto the Director-GeneralandtheMinisterof Interiorandtheproposal of theMinisterof Interiorand,therefore, werebefore the Councilof Ministers andwereconsidered by it inreaching its decision .I, therefore,findnomerit-inhiscomplaint.inthisrespect which is alsodismissed. -, <>$·, In the.result therecourse fails butinthecircumstances Ihave decided with great reluctance not to maker an order for costs against theapplicant. Recourse dismissed. ·*' * . w «i ' ·'• sNo orderas to costs. 1 . - · • " ' " • " 1 * '' . '-'. Μ 'u ...'>-. -. i- ι , , . " ! ·.. - v ..,·...·. - J , : · • ' · . '. ·; _ .\ - · - - . · . . . .* 1 ' ' · . >• . . * ι. ι . .<!. , , ·; •ν X Λ >"i 1239