量
12
obliges an officer who is under "interdiction or suspension"
seek the Governor's permission to leave the territory. This
is a further indication that the references in Part II to
interdiction were not intended to deal with suspension.
Thus we find that the Governor may make regulations
which provide for suspension so long as these do not conflict
with those Col. Regs. which deal with interdiction.
As to this
we adopt the approach of Warrington L.J. in Wallwork v. Fielding
at p. 73, where he commented in relation to the effect of subsequent
upon prior legislation that unless they were plainly repugnant,
effect should be given to both.
C.S.R. 611 deals with the suspension of an officer who
has refused to perform any part of his duties, in connection with
a trade dispute. Such a situation does not fall within any of the
circumstances which give rise to interdiction under Col.Reg. 60.
When C.S.R. 611 was promulgated in October 1977, it
was brought to the attention of the public service in a circular
which stated that action under that C.S.R. was not a disciplinary
measure and "so would not be regarded as a punishment". This
demonstrates a somewhat naive faith in the forgiving attitude of
those about to lose a day's pay. Nevertheless, it shows that the
Governor intended that C.S.R. 611 should fall outside Col. Regs.
54-66, which deal with disciplinary procedure, and was intended to.
supplement them.
We find that this intention has been achieved.
Interdiction
under Col. Reg. 60 is incidental to other disciplinary proceedings or
to an investigation of conduct. C.S.R. 611 provides a summary form
of suspension from duty without pay in strictly limited circumstances.
We do not think that there is a conflict between the two.
To summarise our conclusions on this question
(a) C.S.R. 611 must not conflict with Col. Regs.
(b) Suspension and interdiction are not the same.
(c) Col. Reg. 60 deals with interdiction with Day in specified
circumstances.
02