098-NLR-NLR-V-70-D.-THENABANDU-Petitioner-and-R.-SAMARASEKERA-Registrar-General-Respondent.pdf
472
Thenabandu v. Samar asekera
£
1967 Present: Abeyesundere, J., and Manieavasagar, J.THENABANDU, Petitioner, and R. SAMARASEKERA(Registrar*General), RespondentS. G. 303/67—Application for a Mandate in the nature of a Writ of
Certiorari on the Registrar-General
Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths—Appointment and dismissal—No right tobe heard before dismissal—Marriage Registration Ordinance, s. 6—Births andDeaths Registration Ordinance—Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2), ss. 12,14 (f)—Scope of principle audi alteram partem—Certiorari—Constitutionallaw.
A person who has been appointed by the Registrar-General to be a Registrarof Births and Deaths under the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance, anda Registrar of Marriages under section 6 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance,holds office at the pleasure of the appointing authority. He may therefore bedismissed from both offices by the Registrar-General without being given anopportunity to appear and lead evidence to vindicate his innocence.
The Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance does not contain anyprovision specifying the appointing authority in the case of an appointmentto the office of Registrar of Births and Deaths. Therefore section 12 of theInterpretation Ordinance applies and th • appointment may be made by theMinister or an officer authorised in that behalf by the Minister.
By virtue of section 14 (/) of the Interpretation Ordinance the Registrar*General, as the authority empowered to appoint a Registrar of Births andDeaths, has the unfettered power to dismiss such a Registrar appointed byhim.
The principle audi alteram partem does not apply in the case of dismissalfrom an office where the grounds of dismissal are not specified or where there isaio procedure prescribed which should be followed before dismissal.
47i
ABEYESTJNDERE, J.—Thenabandu v. Samarasekera
PPLICATION for a writ of certiorari on the Registrar-General.
Colvin R. de Silva, with F. R. Dias Bandaranailee, P. D. W. de Silva,Bala Nadarajah and N. Dias, for the Petitioner.
H. L. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Respondent.
November 26,1967. Abeyesundere, J.—
The Petitioner in this case who had been appointed by the Registrar-General to be a Registrar of Births and Deaths and a Registrar of Marriageswas informed by letter dated 30th May, 1967 that he was dismissed fromboth offices by the Registrar-General with effect from 27th May, 1967.Prior to his dismissal he had been asked to show cause why he should notbe dismissed on the two charges specified in paragraph 8 of the petitionrelating to the registration of the marriage of a minor girl without theconsent of her parents. The petitioner had asked for an inquiry and anopportunity to appear and lead evidence to vindicate his innocence.Such an opportunity was not given to the Petitioner. He prays for awrit of certiorari to quash the order of dismissal.
The petitioner had been appointed a Registrar of Marriages under Section6 of the Marriage Registration Ordinance. That section empowers theappointing authority to remove a Registrar at pleasure. As the petitionerheld the office of Registrar of Marriages at the pleasure of the appointingauthority, he had no right in law to be heard before he was dismissed.No writ of certiorari therefore lies in respect of the petitioner’s dismissalfrom the office of Registrar of Marriages.
The Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance does not contain provi-sion specifying the appointing authority in the case of appointments tothe office of Registrar of Births and Deaths. Therefore Section 12 of theInterpretation Ordinance applies and under that Section the appointmentof a Registrar of Births and Deaths may be made by the Minister or anofficer authorised in that behalf by the Minister. It was not disputed inthis case that the Registrar-General who had appointed the Petitioneras a Registrar of Births and Deaths had received the authorisationreferred to in Section 12 of the Interpretation Ordinance. By virtue ofSection 14 (/) of the Interpretation Ordinance the Registrar-General,as the authority empowered to appoint a Registrar of Births and Deaths,has the unfettered power to dismiss such a Registrar appointed by him.There is no statutory provision in the Births and Deaths RegistrationOrdinance or any other statute specifying the grounds of dismissal of aRegistrar of Births and Deaths nor is there any statutory procedure laiddown which is to be observed before the dismissal of such a Registrar.The decision of this Court in the case of Kulatunga v. The Board of Directorsof the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment1 states, relying on the decisionof the House of Lords in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin 2, that the principleof audi alteram partem does not apply in the case of dismissal
1 (1963) 66 N. L. R. 169.
1 (1963) 2 A. E. R. 66.
474
TENNEKOON, J.—Wijeyesinyhe v. Farouk
from an office where the grounds of dismissal are not specifiedor where there is no procedure prescribed which should be followedbefore dismissal. Therefore the fact that the Petitioner was notgiven an opportunity to attend an inquiry and lead evidencedoes not vitiate the order of dismissal. Consequently no writ of certiorarilies in regard to the order dismissing the petitioner from the office ofRegistrar of Births and Deaths.
The Petition is dismissed with costs payable by the Petitioner to the1st Respondent. We fix the costs at Rs. 262’50.
Manicavasagah, J.—I agree.
Application dismissed.