(1988)1988October.17 [A.LOIZOU, P.,MALACHTOS,SAVVIDES, PIKIS,KOURRIS,JJ.) IOANNISFAKAS, Appellant-Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS/THROUGH THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS, Respondent. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo.695). Naturaljustice—Opportunitytobeheard—Adverseadministrativemeasure— An opportunity toputforward theversion of thepersontobe affected shouldbe givento suchperson—Dismissal of Educational Officer on groundofpublicinterest "InvirtueofThePensions(SecondaryEducation Teachers)Laws,1967to1979, section 8
(1)(e)and
(2)and.ofanyother c powersvestedinthisrespectintheCouncilofMinisters"—Christodoulides andOthersv. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.LM. 1297applied. TheappellantwasfirstappointedbytheCommitteeofEducationalServiceasaTeacherof MathematicsinSecondary Education in September, 1964andupto 10thJuly, 1974wasservinginTechnicalEducation when IQ hisservices wereterminatedin thepublicinterest.InAugust, 1974,after thecoupd' etaton 15.7.1974,theappellant wasreinstatedandthissituationwaseventuallylegalisedwiththeDecisionofthe"CouncilofMinisters ofthe 15thMay, 1975underNo.
- Therewereaccusationsagainsttheappellantthatduringthecoupd'etat wasamongthepersons,whotookoverbyforcethepremisesoftheArchbishopric;asaresultaninterdepartmentalinquirywascarriedoutin
- Theapplicantwasinformed oftheaccusationsagainsthimandwasgiven theopportunitytoreplyanddidinfactreply. ^c TheApplicant'sservicewasterminatedonthegroundsofpublicinterest by decision of the Council of Ministers dated 31.1.
- In fact, on 31.1.80theCounciltookfourdecisions,wherebyanumberofMembersof thePolice,anumberofMembersoftheArmy,anumberofTeachersinthe 20 1928 C.L.R. Fakas v. Republic SecondaryEducationandanumberofTeachersintheElementaryEduca tionweredismissedfrom office. , Asaresultsixtyonerecourses, includingthiscourse,werefiled before theSupremeCourtThemaingroundofLaw onwhich allthesesixtyone recourses werebasedhavebeendealtwithbytheFullBenchinthecaseof ChristodoulidesandOthers v.TheRepublicofCyprus,through theCoun cilofMinisters
(1984)3C.L.R.
- Following thedecision inChristodoulidescase,thisrecoursewas tried by thethenPresidentofthisCourt,whodismissedit Hencethisappeal. Thisappealbefore uswas arguedononlyoneground, namely,thatno opportunity wasgiven totheappellant toanswer theaccusations against him.Counselfortheappellantsubmitted thatthedecisionoftheCourtin Christodoulides, supra,atp. 1304,supportshisposition. Inthisrespectcounselargued thatin 1979 statementsweretakenfrom otherpersonscontainingmoreseriousaccusationsthanthosetakenin 1975 for whichtheapplicantwasneverinformedandsoheneverhadtheoppor tunitytorefutethem. " * ν • "ii "•* ·» j , ύ j r 'HI .'.' · i. ,·, - Inrefuting thisargumentthelearnedPresidentstatedthatthereappears clearly from thecontentsofthepersonalfilesoftheapplicant, which Ihave perused,thatthestatementstakenin1979,like.those takenin1975,relate 'tothesameconductoftheapplicantinJuly 1974,whenhewas attheprem isesoftheArchbishopric actingillegallyasitsSecretary andcooperating with thosewhohadtakenitover by forceduringtheabortive coupd* etatin July,
- . . /;.: ,-r, ,, Held,dismissingtheappeal: v ,• . v . · . ? - ν ,. v „
(1)ItistruethatinChristodoulidescaseithasbeendecidedthat the modem notions of Administrative Law require that theperson against •whomanadverseadministrativemeasureistobetakenshouldhaveanop portunity toput forward his own version, nevertheless, further down on thesamepageitisstatedthat.thoughtheCouncifof Ministersdidnotspe cifically inviteeachapplicanttomakehisrepresentations,neverthelesseach applicanthadondiversoccasions inthepast,been informedoftheallega tionsagainsthimandweregiventheopportunitytorefutethem.
(2)ThelearnedPresidentfollowed theapproachof'the FullBench in Christodoulides case. Thestatements taken in 1979like those taken in1975,relatetothesameconductoftheappellantinJuly,1974,andashe fl929 Fakas v.Republic
(1988)wasaforded, inrelation tothestatementstakenin 1975, theopportunity andputforwardhisownversion,therehasnotbeenanycontraventionof therulesofnaturaljusticeortherulesofproperadministration. Appealdismissed.Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: c QhristodoulidesandOthersv. TheRepublic(19§4)3C.I^.R. 1297; >' "Wit-, ' Vassiliouv. TheRepublic
(1982)3CX.R.220; Petridesv. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.216; Marangosv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.682. Appeal. 10 Appeal against thejudgment of thePresident of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Triantafyllides, P.) given on the 29th November, 1986(Revisional Jurisdiction CaseNo. 80/80)*whereby appellant's recourse against the termination of his services as a Schoolmasterin Secondary Education wasdismissed. A. Markides, for the appellant. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOU P.:The Judgment of the Court will bedelivered by Malachtos,J. *(Reportedin
(1987)3C.L.R. 1247). 1930 20 3C.L:R. 5 lO 15 Ι Fakasv.Republic ·'< • ' • ••· * .,.MALACHTOSJJ: This is an-appealagainst thejudgment of theprevious Presidentof this CourtinRecourse No.-80/80 by which the applicationof theapplicanttodeclarenullandvoid and of nolegaleffect whatsoever thedecisionof theCouncilofMinisters communicatedtohimby letterdated22.2.80by whichhis servicesas ateacherin secondary educationweretermiriated as from 1st February, 1980,wasdismissed. •\ Theappellantwasfirstappointedby theCommitteeofEduca tionalServiceasaTeacherofMathematicsinSecondaryEducationinSeptember,1964and upto 10thJuly, 1974was servingin TechnicalEducation when his services were terminatedinthe public interest. In August, 1974, after the coup d'etat on 15.7.1974,the appellant was reinstated and this situation was eventually legalisedwiththeDecisionoftheCouncil ofMinisters ofthe 15thMay, 1975iunder No.43996.' **1·;"·<* ; '• ι^·> V ; «. "t ' 1I . . -. 'Jjr '•' > r * As itappearsfrom theadministrativerecordstherewere accu sationsthattheappellantduringthecoupd' etatwas amongthe personswhotookover by forcethe premises of the Archbishop ric inNicosiaand,was actingillegallyasits secretary;'*• 20 fj In1975.adepartmentalenquiry was carriedoutandasaresult thefollowingletter·was addressed tohim1bytheinvestigating of ficer;· r .i'.• i:· ', , ' , »• ·, .f .'ι . •·. • . ' ι ' * . t i: 25 "As you know theappropriateauthority by virtue ofpara. rgraph 1 of Part l.of theSecondScheduleof thePublicEduca- tionalServiceLaw, 10/69, appointedmetocarry outan en,--1 quiry.in connection with,theaccusationsthatyou might have • committedadisciplinary offence..* · ,— ." 30 2.Thecaseagainst you,asitappearsfrom the.material be fore me, consistsinthatyouhaveactedinaway amounting to breachof the(d) and(a) fundamentaldutiesoftheEducational -.'Officers provided in.section48ofthePublicEducationalSerivice*Law,10/69ibecause:. > -_ . . . . · · . . . . •• J ? 1931 MalachtosJ. Fakasv. Republic
(1988)(a)youhavecollectedonvariousoccasionssumsofmoney fromchurcheswithoutanyauthorityfrom thelawfulecclesiasticalauthority;and (b)you actedin awayamounting torecognition asecclesiasticalauthorityotherthanthelawful one. 5 3.Accordingtoparagraph4ofPart 1 oftheSecondScheduleof thePublicEducational ServiceLaw, 10/69,you have therighttobeheard inconnection with thecaseagainstyou, and,consequently,Iinformyouthatwhateveryouwishtotell meyoumaycometomyoffice at 10a.m.onthe29thor30th 10 August, 1975". Byletterdated29.8.75,inreplytotheletteroftheinvestigatingofficer, theappellantgivesanexplanationofhisactionsatthe relevanttimeandinparticularatpage2thereof statesthefollowing: "Onthatday theresponsiblepersonfor thecollection was absent and I wasrequested bythe alreadyestablished in the Archbishopric afew daysearlier Mr.Gennadios,toissue to thegentlemenwhobroughtthemoney,therelevantreceipt.As he,himself,affirms themoneycametohispossessionimme- 20 diately.Ihavealreadydeliveredtoyoutherelevantcopyofthe said affirmation." By four Decisions of the Council of Ministers under Nos. 18.767, 18.768, 18.769 and 18.770dated 31.1.1980, the servicesof anumberofmembersofthePolice,anumberofmembers 25 oftheArmy,anumberofteachersinthesecondaryeducationand a numberof teachersin theelementary education, respectively, wereterminated. All thefourdecisionsweretotheeffect thatafter athorough considerationofthematerialwhichhadbeenplacedbeforeit,the 30 CouncilofMinistersreachedtheconclusion thatitwouldbevery detrimentaltoallowtheaforementioned personstoremaininthe 1932 15 3.C.L.R. J Fakas v. Republic MalachtosJ. Service of theRepublic,and,consequently, decided thattheir.'services should be terminatedin the(public interest as from 1st Feb ruary, 1980. t <( -\· , .1 5 ΙΟ ,c » - .hvDecision No.-18.767,itiis stated.thatit'was takenin theexercise of*the power under sections 6(f) and 7'of the Pensions Law,jCap.'311,.and oftany otherpowers vested in this'respectiin the Council of MinistersiandiD.ecisions No.^18.768, 18.769 and 18.770.are practically identicahexcepttthat in Decision No. 18.768reference is madetosection 6 of theArmy"of the Republic (Constitution,;EnlistmentandDiscipline) Laws 1961 to 1975,in Decision No.18.769, with which we are concerned,reference is made, to section 8(l)(e) and
(2)of thePensions (Secondary Edu cation Teachers)Laws,j967to.l979 andinDecision No. 18.770 reference,is made to.sections 51(l)(e) and(f)!of the Elementary EducationLaw, Cap. 166. ' f ,ΟΙΛΛ . As aresult of theaforesaid Decisions 61 recoursesAwere filed, including ,the recourse of the.appellant^No.'SO/SO^claiming a declaration of theCourtthattheisaid Decisions of the'Couhcilof Ministers were.null andvoid.andof no!legal·effect (whatsoever. • " ,*. Π υ ' ι - I»*4 ' '' fV 2Q. 25 OQ " C Ql / * ' t ί ΐ • K\»id .\ί"Α Themaingrounds of law onwhich all these'6l· recourses were based, are the following: ·. \.u<i '..-Τι-ΐ-Λ Η» : 1 : , k ii *,· vl ΛΟ.jrro ""!.** ; , * .\\ . 1.That thereis.no legal provision,authorising<the Council of Ministers^to.terminatetheservicesof ^applicants andsothede cision taken iSjillegal(being contrary,to thePensions LawtCap. 311, the Army of thetRepublic Laws,\l967j>uxl979,'fThe Pen sions (Secondary-Education Teachers)Laws;'rl967 - 1979; the ElementarynEducation Law;-jCap.*.166, the,Public Educational Service Law, Law 10/69, theCertaihtDisciplinafy Offences((Conduct of Investigation and Adjudication)jLaw,* Law ,3/77, as amended,andLaw r 57/78.Ι ·,Λ . · .., r,uJ > '" . .'• -v ,-2.Thatme,termination;of'the.services of theapplicants.was in the nature.oka disciplinary, measure.and that it could.not havg beeneffected by meansof administrative measures, and;i u ι 1933 MalachtosJ. Fakasv. Republic
(1988)3. That the said Decisions were taken without a proper enquiry,arenotdulyreasoned,andnoopportunitytobeheardwas giventotheapplicants. Inviewofthefact thatalltheserecoursespresentedtheabove common question of law,anumberof them wasselectedcon- 5 cemingallfourdecisionscomplainedofandwereheardtogether inthefirstinstancebytheFullBenchofthisCourtasatestcase. Judgmentwasissuedon4thNovember, 1983andtherelevantreportisPetrosChristodoulidesandOthersv.TheRepublicofCyprus, throughTheCouncilofMinisters
(1984)3C.L.R.1297. 10 Asregardsthefirstgroundoflaw,thattheCouncilofMinisters hadnopower-toissuetheDecisioncomplainedof, therelevantpartofthejudgmentappearsatpage 1302ofthereportand readsasfollows: "Among the provisionsconferring relevant powersto the 15 CouncilofMinisters,inadditiontothosevestedinitbyvirtue of Article54of the Constitution, are sections 4and 5of the Certain Disciplinary Offences (Conduct of Investigation and Adjudication) Laws 1977 to 1978 (Suspension of Proceedings)Law, 1978(Law57/78). 20 Itcan,inouropinion,beconcluded from readingtogether sections4and5ofLaw57/78thatundersection5theCouncil of Ministersmaydecidetoterminatetheservicesofapublic official for reasonsofpublicinterest undertheprovisionsof any Law, irrespective of whether or nor there was lodged 25 againstsuchofficial acomplaintpursuanttotheprovisionsof the Certain Disciplinary Offences (Conduct of Investigation andAdjudication) Laws 1977to 1978(Laws3/77,38/77and 12/78).Because section 5 wasenacted inordertoprovideto the Council of Ministers an alternative method, other than - Q thoseenumeratedinsection4ofthesameLaw,forachieving theobjectssetoutinthepreambleofLaw57/78.Ifundersection5ofLaw57/78therecouldonlybeterminatedinthepublic interest the services of apublic official against whom a 1934 3C.L.R. Fakasν:Republic Malachtos J. complainthasbeenlodged under the aforementionedLaws 3/ -77,38/7.7and 12/78, thenthere.would be noreason atall to • • enactsection5inadditionsection4ofLaw 57/78;sinceasrer ' gard a public official against*whom suclTa complaint was • lodgeditisexpresslyprovidedinsection4thatthe Councilof Ministersisempowered toterminatehisservicesinthe public interestortoretirehim compulsorily inaccordance withexist ing legislation'*.· . • " . · . • ' . · ; ; . • - • - * - > . Asregardsthesecondground, thatthedecisionof the Council of Ministerswas adisciplinary measure,therelevant partof the judgmentis atpage 1303andthefollowing>isstated:. · .< . . . . Ό * - ',-• ι • • '. ' ."We cannotagreethat,inthe presentinstance,the relevant decisionsof the Council of Ministers;whenviewedin the con textof all·relevant considerations, canbefound tobediscipli nary measures. Inouropinion,unlikedisciplinary measures, . theywerenot intendedto punishtheapplicantsbutonlyto re•..movefrom theserviceof the Republicpersons.who couldno . longer,forreasonsof publicinterest; beretainedin.it;and this iswhy someof the applicants:had theirservicesterminatedby , ;the sub judice decisionsofahe Council of.Ministers'even though disciplinary proceedings against them hadbeen:concludedwithoutthe imposition.of the.punishmentof theterminationof their,servicesor,ofcompulsory,retirement,and inre spect of some others of themdisciplinary proceedings were \ commencedbut neverconcludeddue to the terminauonioftheir c -servicesinthe meantimeby the CouncilofMinisters.'.'. . - / Asregards.theothergrounds/therelevant.partof the judgment appears;atpage1304 and is asfollows:· . · - . - , ..,^ "Even though thedecisions in.question.of the Councilof . , Ministers wereadministrative-measures notof a disciplinary • naturethemodern'notionsof Administrative Law require that •the person^against whomanadverse:administrative measureis to be takenj should have.an.opportunity.tO;puttforward his own version, if he-wishesto.doso,sothatthe administration 1935 MalachtosJ. Fakasv. Republic
(1988)when proceeding todecideon such administrative measure willhavebefore itallrelevantconsiderations (see,forexample,thedecisionsoftheGreekCouncilofStateincases2976/ 1966, 1452/1967 and 1009/1972); and this approach is not onlyconsonant withproperadministration but,also,withba- 5 sicnotionsofnaturaljustice. Inthepresentcaseswehaveperusedthoroughlyallthematerial which hasbeen placed before usand wehavereached, after verycareful andanxiousconsideration, theconclusion that,thoughtheCouncilofMinsitersdidnotspecifically invite JQ eachapplicanttomakehisrepresentationsregardingthepossibilityoftheterminationofhisservicesbytheCouncilofMinisters,neverthelesseach applicant hadondiversoccasionsin thepast been informed of theallegations againsthimandhe hadtheopportunitytorefutethemifhewishedtodoso. ,c Weare,therefore, quitesatisfied thatat least totheminimumextent necessary therehasbeen substantial compliance with theneed toensure thateach oneof theapplicantsknew abouttheallegationsconcerninghimandhashadanopportunitytoanswerthem;andthatwhatevereachoneof theappli- 20 cants had had to say, on various occasions, in this respect, wasbeforeandmusthavebeenconsideredby,theCouncilof Ministerspriortoreachingitssubjudicedecisions. Beforeconcluding thisjudgment wemightaddthatevenif on theface of themthesubjudicedecisionsdonotappearto 2 s contain specific reasons inrelation tothetermination of the servicesofeach andeveryoneof theapplicants,nevertheless suchreasonsaretobederivedfromtherelevantadministrative recordswhich have been placed before us (see,inter alia,in thisrespect, Vassiliou v.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.220, 3 0 229,Petridesv.TheRepublic
(1983)3CL.R. 216,220and Marangos v. TheRepublic,
(1983)3CL.R. 682,692);and weareoftheviewthatthesereasonsrendered,ineachparticularcase,reasonablyopentotheCouncilofMinisterstoterminatetheservicesoftheapplicantconcerned". 35 1936 3 CL.R. • Fakasv. Republic MalachtosJ. It was submitted by counsel for applicant in1thecasein-hand before thelearnedPresident, thartherewasno dueenquiry bythe .Council of Ministers,and,:ih any. event.Uhe case was not duly studiedby themasawholeandby eachoneof its Members. < ' ύ ν : - ' - * ' . . - . " . -• - ' --. 5 Itwassubmitted thattheconductof theapplicant,after hewas •reemployed, was notexamined from 1974 up to 31.1.80 when hisserviceswereterminated.In197,9.statements weretaken from otherpersonscontainingmoreserious accusations than thosetak enin 1975 for which theapplicantwas neverinformed andrsohe ,10 never had theopportunity torefute them.Hefurther submitted thattheapplicantwastreated inamannercontrary tothedoctrine ofequality.safeguarded.by Article 28of theConstitutionbecause otherpublicofficials facing muchmoreserious charges.were not dismissedfromtheServiceandthatatthe timeof theallegedmisI,- ,conducttheapplicant was notihthe-Serviceof theGovernment. -.'The learnedPresident'in dismissingtherecourse made refer ence to,theChristodoulidescase and said that in so far as the judgment.in that-case'covers anyJof the issues raised»in the present case too/he was bound by,.and-endorsed-the approach 2Q adopted>by.,'the,Gourtand.he need notrepeat'therelevant parts which are deemed.to be incorporated,by'reference in1hisjudg ment. He-then.proceeded andgave his reasons.for"disrnissing eachoneof thesubmissions of counsel for applicantand,inpar ticular,·asregardstheground.thatithe'applicantwas notgiventhe opportunity toanwer theaccusations'against him,·hadthistosay p* *Ιρ,1·251:
(1987)3αί^.):.Γ , , ν ν . ^ Γ / . ' . .,r.'>;> t cTbvJiiJ !.' .u - J 'ji :·ι'·:ϊ' ?7" o'h^ri J-Γ, '-»,li r• "••ti%, i hu*·'· "There appears'clearly.ifforri the*contentsiof<the personal - .i'filesof theapplicanOwhich Ihaveperused;·thatthe statements -j'li takenin.1979^'like thosetakenin4975;relateto'the sarne'cohΛductof theapplicantinJuly 1974;'when hewas atthepremis: ' *.es'of,theiArchbishopric acting illegally as its'Secretary an<l r.ocopperatirig with thoseiwho-had'taken irbver by force during ν ^theabortive coupd'etat inJuly, 1974/''',v '<''· • t * - * *<* As theapplicantwas afforded, inrelation tothe statements 1937 Malachtos J. Fakasv. Republic
(1988)takenin 1975,anopportunity toputforward hisownversion regarding hispresenceattheArchbishopricduringthecoupd* etatin.July, 1974,1amsatisfied thatinthepresentcasethere hasnotoccurredanactualcontraventionoftherulesofnatural justiceoroftheprinciplesofproperadministrationduetothe 5 facttheapplicantwasnotinformedofthecontentsofthestatementstakenin 1979,which,itseems,donotdiscloseanynew sinisterconductbytheapplicant." Thisappealbefore uswasarguedononlyoneground,namely,thatnoopportunity wasgiven totheappellant toanswer the \Q accusationsagainsthim.Counselfortheappellantssubmittedthat thedecision of the Courtin Christodoulides, supra,atp. 1304, supportshisposition. ItistruethatinChristodoulidescaseithasbeendecidedthat themodernnotionsofAdministrativeLawrequirethattheperson 15 against whom an adverse administrative measureistobetaken shouldhaveanopportunity toputforward hisownversion,nevertheless,further down onthesamepageitisstatedthatthough theCouncilofMinistersdidnotspecifically inviteeachapplicant tomakehisrepresentations, nevertheless each applicant hadon 20 divers occasions in the past, been informed of the allegations againsthimandwasgiventheopportunitytorefutethem. Havingcarefully consideredtheargumentsofcounselforthe appellantontheissuebeforeus,wemustsaythathefailedtosatisfy usthatthelearnedPresidenterredinanywayindecidingthis 25 issuein thewayhedid.Wemustfurther saythatwefully agree withhisreasoning,asinfact hefollowed theapproachoftheFull Bench in Christodoulides case.As stated in hisjudgment the statements taken in 1979likethosetaken in 1975,relate tothe sameconduct of theappellant inJuly, 1974,and ashe was afforded,inrelationtothestatementstakenin 1975,theopportunity andputforward hisownversion,therehasnot beenanycontravention of the rules of naturaljustice or therulesof proper administration. 1938 3 C.L.R. Fakas v. Republic Malachtos J. For thereasons stated abovei thisappealisdismissed. On thequestionofcosts,'wemakenoorder. • ι \ t.w . • '.Ι i. ~ .i ' ι · \ '\-\""ι v Appeal dismissed. . Noorder asto costs. [ ' -' • " πκ L ι • ' \- I ' V • ( ' - , .- , ϊ - t Λ ι ir <. • ' - ' ι · ft:·. '' '.J c · ;r ν ;* • . •. - *' '. ' •> · · " U . · \ Γ..,'. . . , 1939 ι. '* • • ·• . -. t, ι < ' ^ .i