REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD; EX PARTE TSAWODZI [1993]DLHC10260

Date	1993-03-22
Suit No.	2 G L R 299 - 304
Citation No.	[1993]DLHC10260

FRANCOIS J.

F. Y. KPEGAH FOR THE APPLICANT.

A. L. DJABATEY SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY (NII-AMASSAH KOTEY ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLHC10260
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY
BOARD; EX PARTE TSAWODZI<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">2 G
L R 299 - 304&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:&nbsp;
22ND MARCH, 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>F. Y. KPEGAH FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

A. L. DJABATEY,
SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY (NII-AMASSAH KOTEY, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, WITH HIM)
FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;FRANCOIS
J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I preface this ruling with quotations from
opinions of Lord Denning M.R. and Lord Reid which are in point here. The
observation of Lord Denning M.R. appears in R. v. Kent Police Authority; Ex
parte Godden [1971] 3 W.L.R. 416 at p.421, C.A. There the Master of the Rolls
stated that "decisions leading to compulsory retirement are of a judicial
character and must conform to the rules of natural justice." Lord [p.301]
Reid's opinion appears in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40 at p. 65, H.L. where
he said that "dismissal from an office where there must be something
against a man to warrant his dismissal" may only be carried out in&nbsp; accordance with the rules of natural justice.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The applicant, a police officer, had the
misfortune to be involved in a brawl when lawfully assisting in the collection
of basic rates.&nbsp; He was convicted by the
District Magistrate, Ho, on 13 June 1972 for assault contrary to section 84 of
the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and fined ¢40.00. The applicant's misfortunes
appear only just to have begun, for before he had had time to reflect on his
conviction he was flung out of the police service with ignominy. His dismissal
notice was dated 14 June 1972. It shows that the decision to terminate the
applicant's association with the police service was not only taken but also
communicated to him with alacrity. Such expedition has nothing to commend it.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In invoking the court's supervisory
jurisdiction to quash the order of dismissal, a number of legal matters have
been raised on behalf of the applicant. They involve a consideration of the
Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350), and its companion legislation, the Police
Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1971 (L.I. 688). Without
attempting an exegesis of the sections of the substantive Act I shall summarize
portions relevant to this application as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(1)&nbsp;
Penalties which are designated major, involve dismissal, removal and
reduction in rank.&nbsp; Section 18 (2) of Act
350.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2)&nbsp;
Disciplinary proceedings for misconduct shall be summary or formal.
Section 20 (1).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3) Major penalties shall not be imposed on a
pensionable officer in summary proceedings not arising out of a
conviction.&nbsp; Section 20(2).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(4)&nbsp;
Whether proceedings are summary or formal a written charge is to be
preferred. Section 20 (3) (a).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(5) A penalty can be appealed against within
six weeks of its imposition and "such penalty shall not take effect until
the appeal is determined." Section 20 (3) (d).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(6) Authority to deal with disciplinary
matters may be delegated to the police council, or a committee thereof or to
any member thereof.&nbsp; Section 19 (2).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(7) Where powers are delegated to the
Inspector-General of Police, he may be authorised to exercise those powers
through a disciplinary board or a superior police officer authorised by him in
writing. Section 19 (3).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(8) Only the Inspector-General of Police may
impose a major penalty. Any other body must refer the matter to the
Inspector-General of Police for him to exact the penalty.&nbsp; Section 19 (5).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Turning again to the facts, the applicant was
indeed convicted, consequently section 20 (2) of Act 350 conceives of the inquiry
being summary in nature. Even so a written charge should have been preferred as
[p.302] provided by section 20 (3) (a) aforementioned. The Police Service
(Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1971 (L.I. 688), reg. 4 (2) defines
summary proceedings as "a simple procedure in which the details and brief
record are contained in a police disciplinary report form, and evidence shall
not be reco</main>