Personal record, miscellaneous files containing complaints concerning the plaintiff's behaviour The third defendant had before him the investigation papers, plaintiff's service sheet and Then, the plaintiff maintained that when he asked for an adjournment to prepare hisĭefence, it was also refused as the 3rd defendant said all the witnesses had been summoned for Further, he was not given a copy of theĬharge. Him for the first time just before the start of the hearing. The plaintiff was informed by the inquiry police officer of the charge against Proceedings made against the plaintiff were not held in accordance with the Police Regulations Then the next issue arising in this case is whether the conduct of the disciplinary It was also held that the plaintiff was not given sufficient notice of the charge against himĪnd as was never given a copy of the charge. However, the court had come into conclusion that the plaintiff wasįirst charged at the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings on 13th May 1963, and notĮarlier. The judge was left in considerableĭoubt as to whether the plaintiff was charged some 2 or 3 days prior to the actual hearing asĪlleged by the 3rd defendant. The actual disciplinary proceedings and formed part of them. To them by the 3rd defendant as they constituted the essential and indispensable preliminaries to
A full record should have been made with regard Proper formalities should have been observed. They were matters of prime importance and the May, 1963 and charging him and taking his plea. That the 3rd defendant made no written record of his calling the plaintiff up on the 10th or 11th The judge stated that, it is a most unfortunate circumstance In fact, the plaintiff was never given a copy of the charge against him either before orĭuring the disciplinary proceedings. Plaintiff had been explained about the charge and on being asked to plead, the plaintiff claim for On the other hand, the 3rd defendant alleged that 2 or 3 days before the hearing, the Plaintiff, he was first only informed about the charge against him on the day of the disciplinary There is a sharp conflict ofĮvidence as to when the plaintiff was first informed of the charge against him. The next day (13th May), the proceeding take place. He heard nothing further about the matter until the 12th May, 1963 while he was on a 24-hour Majority of these statements were recorded in March 1963. The defendant recorded the statements from a number of persons including the plaintiff. The third defendant was delegated to conduct the disciplinary proceedings. Void, inoperative and of no effect on three grounds breach of the audi alteram partem rule, bias,Īnd the disciplinary proceedings were not held in accordance with the Police Regulations orĪ complaint against the plaintiff was made by a member of the public to the CentralĬomplaints Bureau and as a result a preliminary investigation a disciplinary offence wasĭisclosed and it became necessary to charge the plaintiff in accordance with the Police The plaintiff sought a declaration that his dismissal from the Singapore Police Force was The parties of the defendant are the commissioner of police and He joined the the Singapore Police Force as the detective policeĬonstable in October 1956. The plaintiff in this case is Phang Moh Sin, the detective police constable in the Orchard Preview text PHANG MOH SHIN v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & amp ORS