J U D G M E N T The plaintiff claims against the defendants the following reliefs: 
a. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the plaintiff from the Police Service is wrongful, null and void and of no legal effect.  b.  An order for re-instatement. 
Or in the alternative 
c. Damages for wrongful dismissal. d. Any other order(s) as this Court may seem just. 
The facts of this case are that the plaintiff was a Chief Inspector of Police with the Ghana Police Service and was the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Station Officer, stationed at the Airport Police Station, Accra before his dismissal from the Police Service.  
The plaintiff’s case is that he has been in the police service for almost 23 years. He was arraigned before a Disciplinary Board headed by Mrs. Patience Ashiokor Quaye to hold formal proceedings into his conduct. He avers that on or about the 3rd day of August, 2011, the proceedings commenced with the first witness, one Anthony Golo, a Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) officer and an uncle of one Christopher Amenyona, the owner of the subject matter of the enquiry. The plaintiff’s lawyers 
2  
took preliminary legal objection against the capacity of the said BNI Official and the adjudicating officer adjourned the case for her ruling but no ruling was given in respect of the objection taken.  The plaintiff claims that after the adjudicating officer made him swear and his lawyers drew the attention of the adjudicating officer that the procedure was wrong and the case was adjourned, he was not at any other time thereafter sworn in to give evidence to put his side of the case before the adjudicating officer. According to the plaintiff whilst the matter was still pending before the adjudicating officer, on  or about the 18th January, 2012, he received a police wireless-message notifying him about the “LIFTING OF INTERDICTION” and subsequently his uniforms and other apparel and his weapon were all returned to him to resume his normal police duties. The plaintiff said quite surprisingly, on the 20th  day of July 2012, he received another document from the Central Disciplinary Board (CDB) with the heading “REVIEW OF SERVICE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS BY THE CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD” purporting to remove him from the Police Service following a service enquiry into his conduct by Chief Superintendent Patience Ashiorkor Quaye of HTU CID/HQRS. The plaintiff contends that his purported removal from the Police Service has no legal basis because he was never given a hearing at the Service Enquiry which offends against the audi alterem partem rule, a cardinal principle of natural justice. The plaintiff stated that being aggrieved by the way he was removed from the Police Service, he petitioned the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Rose Bio Atinga wrote again on the 23rd April 2013 to say that “After careful perusal and consideration of his petition, the Inspector General of Police was of the view that your client was fairly dealt with, considering the gravity of the charges, upon which he was tried and dismissed.” 
The defendants’ case is that in July 2009 one Christopher Amenyona who was travelling outside the country parked his unregistered Toyota Camry Saloon car at parking lot seven at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA), for safekeeping to collect same on his return. According to the defendants Christopher Amenyona’s uncle called Anthony Golo went to the KIA to check on his nephew’s car but found that the car had vanished from the parking lot. He made some enquiries and discovered that it was the plaintiff who had caused the car to vanish, so he petitioned the Police Intelligence and Professional Standards Bureau (PIPS) for the matter to be investigated. The PIPS conducted investigations into the matter and recommended that is was clear that the plaintiff had dented the image of the Ghana 
3  
Police Service and so he should be interdicted and tried by a Service Enquiry. The Police Administration by Police Wireless message DTO: 141230/11/11 requested that Chief Superintendent Patience Ashiokor Quaye (DW4) to conduct Formal Proceedings under regulations 4(3) (c) of the Police Service Disciplinary Proceedings Regulation 1974 (L.I. 933) involving Chief Inspector Kyei Adams. On 24th May, 2010, the Central Disciplinary Board ordered DW4 to conduct the Service Enquiry. On 16/09/2010, the plaintiff was formally charged with Misconduct: Contrary to section 17(k) of Act 350/70. The defendants contended that the Service Enquiry commenced on the 12/11/2010 and the following findings were made: 
a. With the evidence shown the defendant stole the car as claimed by the prosecution witness. b. It is evident that defendant stole the car and after the petitioner had lodged a complaint against him that he bought a similar one for the owner and refunded an amount of $3000. 00, an indication that he actually stole it. c. Defendant in answer to a question admitted that it was through his negligence that the car got missing hence he should be blamed for that. 
The defendants stated that DW4 as the Adjudicating Officer recommended that the plaintiff should be severely reprimanded to serve as a deterrent to others. On 20th July, 2012, the Central Disciplinary Board in reviewing the record of proceedings and considering the findings of the adjudicating officer imposed a sentence of Removal from the Service.        
The issues set out for trial are as follows: 
a. Whether or not the plaintiff was arraigned before a Disciplinary Board headed by Mrs. Patience A. Quaye to hold formal proceedings into the Plaintiff’s conduct.  b. Whether or not the proceedings commenced with the first witness one Anthony Golo a BNI Officer giving evidence.   c. Whether or not the said witness was cross-examined by plaintiff’s lawyers. d. Whether or not the plaintiff was ever given a hearing. e. Whether or not the plaintiff received a Police Wireless Message on 18th January 2012 notifying him of the “LIFTING OF INTERDICTION’ and resumed duties as normal. 
4  
f. Whether or not on 20th July 2012, the plaintiff was served with a “REVIEW OF SERVICE ENQUIRY BY THE CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD” purporting to remove the plaintiff from the Police Service following a Service Enquiry.  g. Whether or not the purported removal of the plaintiff from the Police Service was wrongful. h. Any other issue(s) arising from the pleadings. 
The defendants filed additional issues which are as follows: 
1. Whether or not the plaintiff herein towed an unregistered Toyota Camry Saloon Car from the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) to the Kotoka International Airport Police Post alleging that it was involved in a criminal investigation he the plaintiff was handling. 2. Whether or not the plaintiff was investigating a criminal matter involving the said Toyota Camry Saloon Car.  3. Whether or not the above-mentioned Toyota Camry Saloon Car has vanished and has to date not been found.  4. Whether or not there was a petition to the Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) by the owners of the Toyota Camry Saloon Car to investigate the alleged stealing of same.  5. Whether or not the Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) investigated the alleged stealing of the Toyota Camry Saloon Car and found the plaintiff culpable.  6. Whether or not the plaintiff herein admitted to the Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) that he stole the Toyota Camry Saloon Car.  7. Whether or not charges of Misconduct contrary to section 17(k), Act 350, 1970, and a Notice of Formal Proceedings were served on the plaintiff.  8. Whether or not there was a Service Enquiry adjudicated by Patience Quaye on the alleged stealing and misconduct of the plaintiff.  9. Whether or not the plaintiff herein appeared before the Service Enquiry adjudicated by Patience Quaye.  10. Whether or not there was a Review of the Service Enquiry adjudicated by Patience Quaye by the Central Disciplinary Board resulting in the Dismissal of the plaintiff.  
5  
11. Whether or not the dismissal of the plaintiff was wrongful. 
On the issue of whether or not the plaintiff was arraigned before a Disciplinary Board headed by Mrs. Patience A. Quaye to hold formal proceedings into the plaintiff’s conduct, the plaintiff and defendants witnesses all testified that the plaintiff appeared before her for a Service Enquiry. Under cross-examination the plaintiff said he was not asked to appear before a Disciplinary Board. He explained that a Disciplinary Board is different from Service Enquiry. He said after the Service Enquiry the report is sent to the Disciplinary Board which is made up of three senior police officers (COP). He stated that the Service Enquiry is made up of one officer, one Inspector and one junior officer.  
With respect to the issue of whether or not the proceedings commenced with the first witness one Anthony Golo a BNI Officer giving evidence, exhibit 1, the record of formal proceedings indicate that he was not the first witness as he testified on the 21/10/2011 and hearing commenced on 21/09/2011. DW4 Chief Superintendent of Police, Mrs. Patience Ashiokor Quaye, the adjudicating officer at the Service Enquiry explained that at the first hearing the plaintiff swore on the Bible. She said Antony Golo was not present on that day because they could not locate him at that time.  
Regarding the issue of whether or not the said witness was cross-examined by plaintiff’s lawyers, exhibit 1 indicates that the plaintiff’s lawyer asked him a few questions and then objected to the witness saying that he had no authority from the owner to claim anything on his behalf, thereby challenging his capacity. 
Concerning the issue of whether or not the plaintiff was ever given a hearing, the plaintiff claimed he was not given a hearing whilst the defendants’ witnesses contended he was. Exhibit 1 corroborates the evidence adduced that he was given a hearing as his evidence was taken on oath and he was given the opportunity to question the petitioner and his lawyer cross-examined the petitioner. This issue is dealt with in detail in the judgment. 
With regards to the issue of whether or not the plaintiff received a Police Wireless Message on 18th January 2012 notifying him of the “LIFTING OF INTERDICTION” and resumed duties as normal, exhibit D states LIFTING OF 
6  
INTERDICTION. No evidence was adduced to dispute the plaintiff’s claim that he resumed his duties thereafter. 
The issue of whether or not on 20th July 2012, the plaintiff was served with a “REVIEW OF SERVICE ENQUIRY BY THE CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD” purporting to remove the plaintiff from the Police Service following a Service Enquiry is not in dispute as same is stated on exhibit E.  
Whether or not the purported removal of the Plaintiff from the Police Service was wrongful will be determined later in this judgment.  
On the issue of whether or not the plaintiff herein towed an unregistered Toyota Camry Saloon Car from the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) to the Kotoka International Airport Police Post alleging that it was involved in a criminal investigation he the plaintiff was handling, the plaintiff gave evidence that he and one Oscar towed the car because Oscar told the police he wanted his car to be moved.  DW1 King Solomon Atobrah works with the Ghana Airports Company Limited as a car park supervisor. He testified that he knew the plaintiff. He said that the plaintiff confirmed Staff Officer Opete’s claim that the car was under investigation hence it was picked up. DW2 John Rocky Asiamah is the Staff Officer and works with the 24 Hour Towing, Airport. DW2 said it was when officials from the Ghana Airport Company Limited asked him about the whereabouts of the said car that he knew he had been deceived by the plaintiff when he told DW2 that he was investigating a case on the car. The evidence adduced is clear that the said car was never the subject of any investigations. 
With regards to the issue of whether or not the plaintiff was investigating a criminal matter involving the said Toyota Camry Saloon Car, no evidence was adduced to establish that was the case. The plaintiff denied that he said he was investigating a case involving the said car. The undisputed evidence led is that the said car was never the subject of any investigations. 
Concerning whether or not the above-mentioned Toyota Camry Saloon Car has vanished and has to date not been found, the evidence led is that the said car is missing and same has not been found till date.  
7  
With respect to whether or not there was a petition to the Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) by the owners of the Toyota Camry Saloon Car to investigate the alleged stealing of same, the evidence led establishes that was the uncle of the owner, Anthony Golo, who reported the case to PIPS. This was confirmed by Anthony Golo (DW3). 
The issue of whether or not the Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) investigated the alleged stealing of the Toyota Camry Saloon Car and found the plaintiff culpable, it answered in the affirmative by exhibit 4.  
Whether or not the Plaintiff herein admitted to the Police Intelligence and Professional Standard Bureau (PIPS) that he stole the Toyota Camry Saloon Car cannot be determined as there is no evidence that he admitted stealing the car.  
The issue of whether or not charges of Misconduct contrary to section 17(k), Act 350, 1970, and a Notice of Formal Proceedings were served on the Plaintiff is not in dispute as exhibit A confirms that.  
With respect to the issue of whether or not there was a Service Enquiry adjudicated by Patience Quaye on the alleged stealing and misconduct of the plaintiff, the witnesses and exhibit 1 establish this clearly beyond doubt.  
With regards to the issue of whether or not the plaintiff herein appeared before the Service Enquiry adjudicated by Patience Quaye, the plaintiff, defendants’ witnesses and exhibit 1 all confirm that he did.  
Whether or not there was a Review of the Service Enquiry adjudicated by Patience Quaye by the Central Disciplinary Board resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff is not in dispute as stated in exhibit E.  
The plaintiff had has an issue whether or not the purported removal of the plaintiff from the Police Service was wrongful. Among the defendants’ additional issues was the issue of whether or not the dismissal of the plaintiff was wrongful. They are the same issue and will be determined together.  
In his written address learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff’s complaint is about the proceedings at the Service Enquiry and what went on there. He stated that under cross-examination DW1 King Solomon Atobra said he was not 
8  
aware that there was a Service Enquiry into the conduct of the plaintiff, neither was he invited as a witness before that Police Enquiry. He added that under crossexamination DW2 John Rocky Asiamah said he never appeared before the Police Service Enquiry to give evidence against the plaintiff but it was rather the PIPS that took a statement from him. He submitted that under Police Force (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1974, L.I. 993 regulation 10 and 13(g) makes a mandatory requirement that “the proceedings shall be recorded in writing, and any verbal statement which a defendant may make in addition to his written statement of explanation shall be taken down in writing”. Learned counsel stressed that the plaintiff was not even called upon to open his defence. He stated that from the evidence of DW3 and DW4 and their answers under cross-examination, the plaintiff’s claim that he was not given a hearing at the Service Enquiry has been established. He contended that DW4 merely acted on the report from PIPS by making references from same when that report was not formally tendered in evidence by an officer from PIPS or the person who wrote same. He cited In Re- Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu v. Kotey [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 and Sections 11(1), 13 and 14 of the Evidence Act and submitted that per the evidence adduced before the court the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons.   
Learned counsel for the defendant submitted in his written address that the plaintiff attested to the fact that he was the CID Station Officer at the Airport Police Station and that the car involved in this case is a Toyota Camry. Learned counsel stated that the plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that he gave a statement to PIPS, which confirms that he was investigated. It was submitted that the plaintiff admitted under cross-examination that he appeared before DW4 in a Service Enquiry. 
In his written address learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff’s claim must fail because an evaluation of the evidence before the court on a preponderance of probability shows that he failed to impugn the Service Enquiry. It was contended that he failed to challenge the penalty of removal from service imposed on him by the Central Disciplinary Board. It was submitted that given the fact that the matter was investigated by PIPS which culminated in the Service Enquiry, whose findings was reviewed by the Central Disciplinary Board which imposed a harsher sentence, the removal of the plaintiff was lawful notwithstanding that he tried to replace the car and $3,000.00 to Christopher Amenyona. 
9  
Leaned counsel for the defendants quoted section 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and cited the cases of In re Yendi Skin Affairs; Andani v. Abdulai (1982-83) GLR 1080 at 1085 and Kisko Products (Ghana) Limited v. Delmas America Africa Lines (2001-2002) 1 GLR 368 at 367 in support of their case. 
DW1 stated under cross-examination that he was aware that there was a Service Enquiry into the conduct of the plaintiff. He said he DW1 was not invited as a witness before that Police Enquiry. Under cross-examination DW2 said he did not appear before the Police Service Enquiry to give evidence against the plaintiff but it was the PIPS that took a statement from him.  
DW3 Anthony Golo testified that his nephew Christopher Amenyona’s unregistered Toyota Camry car got missing from the KIA car park and his investigations indicated that it was the plaintiff who towed it away. DW3 said he petitioned the IGP on the issue of the missing car. He said he confronted the plaintiff to return the car but he did not but rather bought another car to replace it. He emphasized that the car the plaintiff bought was the same brand of car but the one plaintiff bought was Japan and the missing one was an American model. DW3 said he was aware that as a result of his petition to the IGP, the matter was referred to the PIPS. Under crossexamination DW3 said he appeared before PIPS and also the Service Enquiry at the Police Headquarters. DW3 said he appeared before DW4 the adjudicating officer twice and he was questioned by the plaintiff’s lawyers. Under cross-examination DW3 said DW4 asked the plaintiff questions. 
DW4 gave evidence that she was mandated by the Police Administration to try the plaintiff. She said she received a report (exhibit 2) from PIPS through the Police Administration. She tendered exhibit 3 the petition to PIPS. She stated that she conducted a Service Enquiry and tendered exhibit 1 as the record of the formal proceedings. She said she found the plaintiff guilty and recommended that he be reprimanded by the Police Administration. She tendered exhibit 6 the review conducted by the Central Disciplinary Board. 
Under cross-examination DW4 said apart from this Service Enquiry she had conducted one other. She disputed plaintiff’s counsel contention that she is not very conversant with Service Enquiries. DW4 stated that she was not aware that during the Service Enquiry the interdiction of the plaintiff was lifted and stressed that at the 
10  
time the plaintiff was said to have been recalled to duty the Service Enquiry had not been concluded. She explained that in the conclusion of her Service Enquiry, she wrote that the plaintiff had been on interdiction for a long time. She said the plaintiff’s lawyer in court was one of the two lawyers the plaintiff attended the Service Enquiry with. She denied that the plaintiff was not given a fair trial at the Service Enquiry. She tendered exhibit 1 as her summary of the evidence based on the facts of the case. She stressed that the plaintiff was given the opportunity to be heard and gave evidence. She admitted that the proceedings of a formal Service Enquiry is to be recorded in writing and stated that when they finish the Enquiry, they type and submit a report officially. She said the hand written proceedings were a draft so after typing them she did not file them.    
Under cross-examination the plaintiff maintained that he never spoke to the adjudicating officer, DW4 but she disputed this. Exhibit 1 indicates that the plaintiff appeared before the adjudicating officer at least three times or on three different occasions, was sworn on the Bible and gave evidence or was asked questions by DW4. 
DW2, DW3 and DW4 corroborated the evidence adduced that the petition against the plaintiff was investigated by PIPS.  
The plaintiff, his lawyer, DW3 and DW4 all stated that DW3 was at the Service Enquiry and questioned by the plaintiff’s lawyer. They all stated that in the course of the plaintiff’s lawyer questioning DW3, there were heated exchanges so DW4 adjourned the proceedings. The plaintiff claims that the Enquiry was not properly conducted and concluded because they were never recalled by DW4. The plaintiff’s case is that when his lawyer challenged DW3’s capacity to testify they were never given another opportunity to cross-examine him. Under cross-examination the plaintiff admitted his lawyer asked Anthoy Golo (DW3) some questions. Under cross-examination, DW4 maintained that the plaintiff’s counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine DW3 and he did. She added that the plaintiff’s counsel in court had the opportunity to cross-examine DW3 when they appeared before her, but he did not take it but rather attacked him from the way she saw it. DW4 stated that after that day, counsel for the plaintiff did not further cross-examine DW3 neither did the plaintiff ask DW3 any questions. DW4 stated that DW3 was recalled after that day to testify and he did as indicated on exhibit 1.  
11  
Under cross-examination, DW4 said exhibit 3 the petition to PIPS was referred to her by the Police Administration. DW4 said PIPS an investigative bureau conducted investigations as a result of the said petition. She said hers was an adjudicative body and not an investigative body. DW4 stated that the plaintiff gave evidence before her and she questioned him based on the particulars of the offence against him. DW4 said she could not furnish the court with the handwritten recorded statement of the plaintiff because she did not have it. 
Exhibit A is the notice of formal proceedings to the plaintiff and exhibit B is the response of the plaintiff to the notice of formal proceedings in which he denied the charge. Exhibit C is the Police wireless message to the Commanding Officer/ Airport Station to release the plaintiff to appear before the adjudicating officer. Exhibit D is the Police wireless message lifting of interdiction of the plaintiff and dated 12/05/10. Exhibit E is the Review of Service Enquiry proceedings by the Central Disciplinary Board with respect to the plaintiff imposing a sentence of Removal from the Service on him. Exhibit F is the petition of the plaintiff against his purported removal from the Police Service. Exhibit F gives the detailed reasons why the plaintiff contended he was not given a hearing, no service enquiry into his conduct took place and that he should be re-instated into the Police Service. Exhibit G is the response to the plaintiff’s petition stating that he was fairly dealt with therefore his petition could not be upheld and sustaining the punishment of dismissal imposed on him. Exhibit 1 is the record of formal proceedings under Regulation 4(3) (c) of the Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1974 (LI 993) on the plaintiff. In it the adjudicating officer DW4 recommended that the plaintiff should be given severe reprimand to serve as a deterrent for others. Exhibit 2 is the petition against the plaintiff to the Police Administration.     
The totality of the evidence adduced and the exhibits tendered all indicate clearly that the plaintiff was given a hearing and that due process was adhered to. It also confirms that the Service Enquiry was properly held as all the parties were given the opportunity to be heard and were heard. The law requires that a person be given the opportunity to be heard. It does not compel a person to speak hence there is a right to silence or not to speak to a charge or complaint. Once it is evident that a party was given the chance or opportunity to be heard, the law deems that he has been given a hearing.  
12  
I have carefully evaluated the totality of the evidence led and come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the plaintiff was not wrongful but in accordance with law. 
An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof on him as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). The plaintiffs claim fails and judgment is entered for the defendant.  I have considered the factors stated in Order 74 rule 2(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended by C.I.87 and the facts and circumstances of this case. I am of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the parties herein that I make no order as to costs.  There is no order as to costs.   
 (SGD.) 
GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)     
Counsel:                                                                                   
1. Mr. E. Arthur Mensah for the Plaintiff. 
2. Mr. Cecil Adadevoh (PSA) for the Defendants.  
  