Wee Chong Jin CJ:

This is an appeal from the decision of FA Chua J in chambers in an application for an interlocutory injunction. The relevant facts are these. The plaintiff is a public officer holding the rank of assistant superintendent of Police in the Police Service in Singapore. The defendants are members of a committee of inquiry (hereafter referred to as the said committee) appointed by the Public Service Commission under r. 4 of the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964 to inquire into certain charges preferred against the plaintiff.

The said committee inquired into the charges on various dates between the 1 February and 16 February 1967.

On 13 June 1967 the Public Service Commission addressed a letter to the first defendant as chairman of the said committee, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

The commission has directed that the full facts of the case be established and that in particular the committee call and hear Mr. Ong Kim Boon Commandant of the Police Training School.

In pursuance of that direction the said committee directed the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior and Defence to inform the plaintiff that the said committee had decided to hear further evidence and to be present at the Beach Road Camp on 3 July 1967 when the said committee would meet to fix suitable dates acceptable to all parties for hearing further evidence.

The plaintiff through his solicitor by letter dated 26 June 1967 objected to such further proceedings but nevertheless the plaintiff and his solicitor appeared before the said committee on 3 July and again objected to such further proceedings. The said committee overruled the objections and fixed 29 and 30 September 1967 for the hearing of further evidence.

The plaintiff on 9 September 1967 commenced proceedings by a writ of summons in the High Court of Singapore against the defendants who are the members of the said committee claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the first, second and third defendants who purport to be respectively the chairman and members of the committee of inquiry appointed by the Public Service Commission to inquire into charges preferred against the plaintiff ceased to hold such offices after 4 March 1967; and/or alternatively;

(b) A declaration that the decision made by the defendants as conveyed to the plaintiff in a letter addressed to the plaintiff, and dated 26 June 1967 to hear further evidence in the inquiry concerning the plaintiff and/or any steps taken in purported furtherance of the said inquiry were illegal, void, inoperative, of no effect and/or ultra vires the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 1964;

(c) An injunction to restrain the defendants from hearing further evidence in the aforesaid inquiry on 29 and 30 September 1967 or on any other day and/or taking any steps in purported furtherance of the said inquiry.

The plaintiff then took out the present application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants who are the three members of the committee of inquiry appointed by the Public Service Commission of Singapore to inquire into charges preferred against the plaintiff to restrain them from hearing further evidence in the said inquiry on 29 and 30 September or any other day and/or taking any steps in purported furtherance of the said inquiry until after the trial of the action. FA Chua J heard the application and granted the interlocutory injunction.

It is clear law that for the plaintiff to obtain an interlocutory injunction in the terms asked for he must make out a prima facie case that he would succeed in his claim for one or other of the two declarations he has sought.

Apart from the power vested constitutionally in the President of Singapore to dismiss at pleasure, the power to exercise disciplinary control over public officers lies with the Public Service Commission of Singapore and is to be found in artic