Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001349/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 October 1995 before Hon Jerome Chan, J..
Administrative law – judicial review – disciplinary proceedings – compulsory retirement with deferred pension – disparity of treatment – legitimate expectation – Wednesbury unreasonableness – irrationality – whether applicant pleaded guilty – Applicant Pang Chak Yum was an overseer in the Urban Services Department found guilty of 57 occasions of absence from duty totalling 91.65 hours and 49 occasions of making false entries within 14 months, but found not guilty of leaving Hong Kong whilst on sick leave – Secretary for the Civil Service directed compulsory retirement with deferred pension – Whether disparity of treatment per se constitutes unfairness – Held, no; comparable decisions must first be proper and correct decisions and the factual circumstances, including personal background and mitigating circumstances, must be very substantially similar before disparity can demonstrate unfairness – Whether the penalty was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational – Held, no; the applicant had clearly denied all charges at the disciplinary hearing and showed no repentance, the improvement in service after early 1992 was qualified by his awareness of the investigation, and the disparity was amply justified by significant differences between the applicant's case and the comparables (Chan and Lo) – Whether the applicant pleaded guilty – Held, no; the applicant stated 'I deny all charges' at the hearing, raised positive defences, and vigorously challenged prosecution evidence – Application dismissed with costs – Court reaffirms limited supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review and legislative intention to entrust disciplinary power to the statutory body, not the courts
Legal issues: Whether disparity of treatment per se constitutes unfairness in disciplinary proceedings · Whether the penalty was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational · Whether the applicant pleaded guilty to the disciplinary charges
Outcome: Application dismissed with costs.
Cited by 2 cases