1963 BLR 556 [ Cause of Action ]

ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

ဒေါက်တာမောင်မောင်က၊ဦးသာဒင် နှင့် မြန်မာနိုင်ငံတော်လှန်ရေးကောင်စီအစိုးရ၊ထောက်ပံ့ရေးနှင့်သမဝါယမအသင်းအတွင်းရေးမှူး၊၁၉၆၃ မတစ ၅၅၆ အမှုမှာ၊ cause of action မပေါ်တဲ့အတွက်အမှုကိုပယ်တဲ့နေရာမှာ၊ဥပဒေအရတရားစွဲဆိုရန်အကြောင်း(ဥပဒေတခုခု)မပေါ်ပေါက်ဘူးလို့ဆုံးဖြတ်ထားတာကိုလေ့လာပါ။

အမှုက၊ဦးသာဒင်က၎င်းကိုအလုပ်ဖြုတ်တာဥပဒေနှင့်မညီဘူးဆိုပြီး၊လုပ်သက်ဆုနှင့်ပင်စင်ရလိုကြောင်း၊အစိုးရအပေါ်တရားစွဲဆိုတာဖြစ်တယ်။

ဒေါက်တာမောင်မောင်က၊ at the pleasure of Government (နိုင်ငံတော်ကကြည်ဖြူသရွေ့သာတာဝန်ထမ်းဆောင်ခွင့်ရှိတယ်)၊ဒါကြောင့် cause of action မပေါ်ဘူးလို့၊ကျကျနနစီရင်ချက်ရေးသားချမှတ်ထားတာကိုလေ့လာပါ။

ဒေါက်တာမောင်မောင်က၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၅၅၆မှာ၊အောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်ပါတယ်-

Held: It is not the State alone , but every master also , who can dismiss its servent at pleasure , in the absence of contractual or Statutory restraints . In the case of the State , the additional consideration of the welfare and safety of the people gives rise to the needed immunity from suits for wrongful dismissal . Except where the power to dismiss at pleasure is willingly restricted by the Sovereign himself , such suits do not lie .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The view of the continuance of prerogative right of dismissal is also supported by the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act . In s. 25 of the Act , the doctrine of employment during the pleasure of the State is expressly preserved .

The basis of the present suit is that the dismissal of the plaintiff from the service was wrongful or illegal or ultra vires . The cause of action therefore is that the Government had acted wrongfully or illegally or ultra vires in removing the plaintiff from the service . This is a question which the late Supreme Court had fully considered . The dismissal of the Plaintiff 's application by the Supreme Court was on the ground that the Government had not acted wrongfully , illegally or ultra vires in removing him from service . The ruling of the Supreme Court and the law on the subject , deprives the suit in its present form of its cause of action .

တရားလိုဦးသာဒင်စွဲဆိုသောအမှုတွင်၊ခိုင်လုံသောတရားစွဲဆိုရန်အကြောင်းထင်ရှားစေခြင်းမရှိဟု၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၅၇၁မှာ၊တရားသူကြီးဒေါက်တာမောင်မောင်ကအောက်ပါအတိုင်းဆုံးဖြတ်ပါတယ်-

The cause of action of the suit therefore is that the Government had acted wrongfully or illegally or ultra vires in removing the plaintiff service . This is a question which the late Supreme Court had fully considered and decided with reference to the law and the rules and regulations relating to the civil service . While the Supreme Court had observed that a suit for damages was probably the more appropriate course for U Tha Din to pursue rather than a remedy by way of writ , the Supreme  Court did not abdicate its judicial power . Insted it went fully into the merits of the case and expounded the law that applied . The dismissal of U Tha Din's application by the Supreme Court was on the ground that the Government had not acted wrongfully or illegally or ultra vires in removing him from service . Here , if U Tha Din is granted the leave that he seeks to sue as a pauper , in the way the suit is framed the decision of the Supreme Court would still stand in his way , for the whole basis of the suit is that the order of the Government is wrongful , illegal or ultra vires . Even assuming , therefore , that all the facts narrated by U Tha Din in his plaint are true , the law would be against him . The ruling of the Supreme Court and the law on the subject , which I have at some length discussed above , deprives the suit in its present frame of its cause of action .

I must therefore , and not without regret , nor without sympathy for the plaintiff , reject his application for leave to sue as a pauper because the plaint , examined in the light of the law , fails to reveal a valid cause of action .