Buttrose J:

In this action the plaintiff seeks a declaration that his dismissal from the Singapore Police Force purported to be effective on 18 May 1963 was illegal, void, inoperative and of no effect.

The plaintiff bases his claim on three grounds:

(1) That the principle embodied in the maxim 'audi alteram partem' was not adhered to in that:

(a) the plaintiff had no notice or inadequate notice of the charge against him in point of time; and

(b) he was not given an opportunity of being heard in his defence;

(2) That the third defendant who conducted the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the plaintiff was biassed or that there was a real likelihood of bias on his part; and

(3) That the disciplinary proceedings were not held in accordance with Police Regulations or General Orders.

The plaintiff joined the Singapore Police Force in October 1956 as a detective police constable. In March 1963 a complaint was made against the plaintiff who was still a detective police constable and at that time attached to the Orchard Road Police Station - Crime Side. This complaint was made by a member of the public to the Central Complaints Bureau. As a result an investigation was carried out by a senior detective officer of the Orchard Road Police Station, one Inspector Mahadevan who recorded statements from a number of persons including the plaintiff. The statement of the complainant was recorded by Assistant Superintendent of Police Amerasinghe.

The majority of these statements were recorded in March 1963. According to the plaintiff he heard nothing further about the matter until 12 May 1963 when while he was on 24 hour reserve duty, and during the evening roll call, he was told to report to the third defendant on the following morning, 13 May 1963 to be defaulted but was not informed of the nature of the default. It subsequently transpired in evidence that it was not during the evening roll call that he was told to report the following morning at 10.10 a.m. on 12 May 1963 and this was admitted by the plaintiff. The position was that as a result of the preliminary investigation carried out by Inspector Mahadevan a disciplinary offence was disclosed and it became necessary to charge the plaintiff in accordance with the Police Regulations 1959 and the third defendant was detailed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings which were required to be held without undue delay.

There is a sharp conflict of evidence as to when the plaintiff was first informed of the charge against him. According to the plaintiff it was not until he appeared before the third defendant on the morning of 13 May 1963 the day on which the disciplinary proceedings were held that he was told for the first time what the charge against him was.

The third defendants evidence on this matter was that two or three days before the hearing on 13 May 1963 (i.e. 10 or 11 May) the plaintiff was brought before him under escort. The third defendant said he read the charge to the plaintiff and explained it to him and on being asked to plead to it the plaintiff claimed trial. The third defendant then postponed the hearing until 13 May 1963 and the reason he gave for charging the plaintiff in advance of the hearing was that if he pleaded guilty no witnesses would require to be summoned to attend.

It was common ground that the plaintiff was never at any time given a copy of the charge either before, at or during the disciplinary proceedings.

It is a most unfortunate circumstance that the third defendant made no written record of his calling the plaintiff up on 10 or 11 May 1963 and charging him and taking his plea. They were matters of prime importance and the proper formalities should have been observed and a full record should have been made with regard to them by the third defendant as they constituted the essential and indispensable preliminaries to the actual disciplinary proceedings and formed part of them. In the result, I am left in considerable doubt as to