11
言
4.
Does C.S.R. 611 conflict with Colonial Regulations?
It follows from our conclusion that Col. Regs. are
subordinate legislation binding the Governor that he may not make
rules governing the public service which conflict with them.
It was submitted for the appellants that C.S.R. 611
does conflict with Col. Regs. 54-66, which are concerned with
disciplinary proceedings, and so must be held invalid, for the
following reasons
(a) Col. Regs. are intended to be exclusive.
35 30
(b) Even if they are not.so intended, Col. Regs. deal in detail
with the circumstances in which "interdiction" may be used.
(c) Interdiction is in effect suspension and it must be inferred
that suspension is not to be employed in any other way.
(d) C.S.R. 611 purports to evade the protection afforded by
Col. Regs. (in particular Col. Reg. 60) by substituting a
summary method of suspension without pay for the carefully
regulated procedure set out in Col. Regs.
We see no reason
We do not accept the first argument,
why Col. Regs. should be regarded as exclusive. Indeed, Col. Regs.
54 to 66, by the terms of Col. Reg. 54(1) apply only to officers on the
permanent establishment. Nor is there anything in Col. Regs. which
implies that the Governor may not exercise the inherent powers which,
as we have found, he enjoys under Articles XIV and XVI to regulate
the public service, in such a way as to supplement the directions to
him contained in Col. Regs., though. not to conflict with them.
Col. Reg. 60 deals with "interdiction".
This is, in
some of its effects, similar to "suspension". Interdiction is
described in Col. Reg. 60 as "interdiction from the exercise of
powers and function of his office". Suspension is described in
Article XVI as "suspension from the duties of his office".
The old Col. Reg. 56, which still governs other dependent
territories, applied to Hong Kong until Appendix II to the 1971
Edition of Col. Regs, was promulgated in 1970.
That Col. Reg.
ļ