A civil suit filed by a former high-ranking Police officer against the Governor and other top brass got underway in Supreme Court yesterday.

Former Assistant Police Commissioner Wayne Perinchief, 54, is seeking to quash a decision which forced him to retire thereby terminating his employment.

The four respondents named in the matter are Governor Lord Waddington, the Public Service Commission, the Attorney General and Police Commissioner Colin Coxall.

Mr. Perinchief's lawyer Delroy Duncan -- who is assisted by lawyer Juan Woolfe -- submitted that the abolishment of the position was an unlawful decision and that rules had been breached as his client had a legitimate reason to believe he should stay on the force until he was 60 years old.

He told the court that his client had a long and distinguished career in the Police force which commenced in 1964.

During his career he was involved in a wide range of professional education and training including a command course in the UK which was designed to prepare students for leading a Police force, said Mr. Duncan.

He added that he felt further consideration needed to be given by the Police to his client who had accomplished so much during his career including receiving three commendations.

Mr. Duncan said Mr. Perinchief was interviewed by Mr. Coxall and Deputy Commissioner Michael Mylod in August when he was asked if he would be interested in early retirement with a benefits package.

He said Mr. Perinchief told them he wanted to serve until he retired at the age of 60 but there were further indications that he was not being considered as part of a restructured Police service.

Mr. Coxall continued to offer early retirement to Mr. Perinchief and said he would receive special pension benefits if he took it, said Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Duncan told the court that his client then received a letter saying that his post of assistant commissioner for crime had been abolished -- along with three other top positions -- by the Cabinet on the advice of the Public Service Commission.

He added that his client was unfamiliar as to who was in the Cabinet when it made this decision which was why the Attorney General had been named as a respondent.

And this decision was backed up by the Governor which was why he had been named in the writ, said Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Perinchief was told he would be paid upon his retirement and could even be briefly deployed in an area of public service as part of a severance package if he wished, continued Mr. Duncan.

He contended that dismissals made by Mr. Coxall after the Cabinet approved them were not handled as they had been previously.

Changing the number of officers making up the Police Service or getting rid of a post, continued Mr. Duncan, had previously been determined by legislature as stated in the Police Act and subsequent amendments.

He submitted that if legislative sanctions were required then, they should also be required for the abolition of Mr. Perinchief's post as the last amendment to the Police Act left room for more than one assistant commissioner.