High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ. Coffey v The Commonwealth [1969] HCA 22 ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs. June 2 Barwick C.J. The appellant in this case submitted that reg. 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations is invalid on two grounds, as I understand counsel: one, that the regulation is inconsistent with s. 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966 in particular; secondly, that it goes beyond the authority intended to be given by s. 97, having regard to the provisions of s. 55. As to the first ground: in my opinion, the short answer to the argument was given by Mr. Justice Owen in his judgment when he said [2] : I think the short answer to these arguments is that reg. 14 (1) is not a provision imposing punishment on an officer who commits a breach of reg. 13. Its purpose is to enable a chief officer to require an officer who has, without authority, been absent from duty during a period when he should have been at work, to make up the time lost by such absence. 1. (1968) 118 C.L.R., at p. 351. In my opinion, that accurately describes the operation of reg. 14 (1): it is not inconsistent with s. 55. As to the second submission, in my opinion, the validity of the regulation is covered by the opening words of s. 97, if not indeed by pars. (k) and (m) of that section, having regard to the subject matter of the Act and the nature of the regulation under challenge. In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed. Kitto J. I agree. Taylor J. I agree. Windeyer J. I agree.