High Court of Australia
H.C. oF A. 1917. we
MELBOURNE, Tune 26, 29.
Isaacs J.
HIGH COURT
{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
TAYLOR F e : t ; a Z Rees
AND
THE COMMONWEALTH ' F . Derenp. MI
Public Service (Commonwealth)—Offence by officer—Investigation—Referenc Board of Inquiry—Reporl—Penalty—Condition precedent—Suspension of 0 —Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-1915 (No. 5 of 1902—No. 37 of 19 sec. 46.
Where an officer of the Public Service of the Commonwealth is charged | an offence under sec. 46 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902-191
section notwithstanding that the officer has not been suspended under sul 2 or further suspended under sub-sec. 4. 3
Williamson v. The Commonwealth, 5 C.L.R., 174, distinguished.
'Therefore, where an officer charged with such an offence was permit the Chief Officer to continue in the performance of his duties pen
determination of the charge and voluntarily assented to so continue,
Held, that the subsequent proceedings and report of the Board of Ing! in relation to the charge, and the consequent reduction of the officer in statu and salary, were not ultra vires.
Hearine or Acrion.
An action was brought in the High Court by William Ta an officer of the Public Service of the Commonwealth, against: Commonwealth, seeking a declaration that the proceedings
Public Service Commissioner thereon, were wltra vires and ¥ authority, and that he was still a line inspector in the Depa of the Postmaster-General at a salary of £228 a year.
23 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 251
'The action was heard by Isaacs J., in whose judgment hereunder 4: ©. or A.
the material facts appear. oy Tavtor Schutt, for the plaintiff. a ; Coson-
~ Mann, for the defendants. Najera rs
Cur. adv. vult.
Isaacs J. read the following judgment :—The plaintiff William — June 29. Taylor is an officer employed in the General Division of the Com- monwealth Public Service. In November 1915 he was a line inspector in the Postmaster-General's Department receiving £228 a year. From 19th May 1915 to 7th July of that year he had been supervising the work of line construction between Footscray and Sunshine. On 8th November the Chief Officer, Melbourne, charged him with negligence or carelessness in the discharge of his duties in failing to see that the work was carried out in accordance
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate