By a summons dated the 13th December, 1979, the appellants sought a declaration that C.S.R. 511 does not form part of the contract of employment between the Crown (in its capacity of the Hong Kong Government) and the dispensers, that it was in breach of such contract and that they were entitled to be paid salary in respect of the period
of their suspension.
Judgment of Cons, J.
!
Cons, J. made it clear that he had not considered the merits
of the action taken either by the dispensers or by the Secretary for
the Civil Service. He confined his attention to the legal issues.
יִד י
J
..
involved in the declarations sought by the dispensers.
The judge's conclusions may be summarized as follows:
So have w2.
(a) that the Crown enjoys in Hong Kong the prerogative power to
suspend a public officer, without pay;
(b) that C.S.Rs. do not create a contractual relationship between
,་་་
the Crown and its servants;
(c) that the Crown has power to suspend the dispensers under Article XVI
of the Hong Kong Letters Patent ("Article XVI"), even if it has
no such power under C.S.R. 511;
(d) that it makes no difference that the Crown had wrongly purported
to act under C.S.R. 611, since it had power to suspend under the
Letters Patent.:
This appeal involves not only a consideration of the validity
and effect of C.S.R. 611, but an examination of other questions, the
answers to which may have effects of some significance on the future relationships of the Crown, in its right of the Government of Hong Kong,
and the public officers of that Government.
A
2.
As we see it, the following matters fall to be considered:
Does the Crown have power to legislate for the control and
discipline of members of the public service of Hong Kong
("public officers")?
In accordance with such a power, may the Crown make provision
for the suspension of public officers without pay?
What are the status and effect of Colonial Regulations?
("Col. Regs.")
11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.