Termination of contract employment under lawful provisions does not require a hearing unless it constitutes a disciplinary dismissal, which was not the case here.

[1] The plaintiff was employed by the Government of Malaysia, the third defendant, as a specialist medical officer on grade U47 in the Ministry of Health pursuant to an agreement for a contract of service ('the agreement') for a period of two years, commencing from 1 July 2005. The agreement was signed by the secretary of the Public Services Commission Malaysia, the first defendant, on behalf of the third defendant, and by the plaintiff.

[2] On 16 June 2006, the secretary-general of the Ministry of Health, the second defendant, issued a notice terminating the plaintiff's services with effect from 1 August 2006 pursuant to cl. 9 of the agreement, which reads as follows:

Penamatan oleh Kerajaan

9. Kerajaan boleh pada bila-bila masa memberhentikan perkhidmatan pegawai dengan memberi notis secara bertulis seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam jadual kepada perjanjian ini atau dengan membayar kepada pegawai satu bulan gaji sebagai ganti notis itu tanpa memberi apa-apa alasan.

A free English translation thereof reads:

Termination by the Government

9. The Government may at any time terminate the services of the officer by giving notice in writing as provided in the schedule to this agreement or by paying to the officer one month's salary in lieu of notice without giving any reason therefor.

The relevant provision in the schedule to the agreement reads:

5. Fasal 9 dan 10 - Notis berhenti kerja: 30 hari.

A free English translation thereof reads:

5. Clauses 9 and 10 - Notice of termination: 30 days.

[3] By this originating summons, which was filed on 20 March 2007, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the act of the defendants in terminating his services as a specialist medical officer on grade U47 in the Ministry of Health was null and void and of no effect;

(b) a declaration that the termination of the contract of service of the plaintiff was null and void and of no effect because the defendants failed to adhere to the procedure (for termination) contained in the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993;

(c) a declaration that the termination of the contract of service of the plaintiff was null and void and of no effect in law and that the plaintiff be reinstated in the post that he held prior to the termination of his services;

(d) a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the salary, allowances and other benefits which he would have enjoyed had his contract of service not been terminated and that the defendants do pay him the same;

(e) damages for the termination of the services of the plaintiff, which termination was null and void and of no effect;

(f) costs;

(g) interest;

(h) any other order which the court thought to be just, fit and proper.

[4] The crux of the plaintiff's challenge of the termination of his services was that it was unlawful as he was never given an opportunity to show cause why his services should not be terminated. He further contended that his services should have been terminated in accordance with cl. 8 of the agreement, which provides as follows:

Pemberhentian oleh Kerajaan

8. Jika pegawai pada bila-bila masa cuai atau enggan atau kerana apa-apa jua sebab selain dari sebab yang disebutkan dalam fasal 7 tidak mematuhi apa-apa perintah yang diberi oleh seseorang pegawai Kerajaan yang berkuasa ke atasnya atau membocorkan apa-apa maklumat berkenaan dengan hal ehwal Kerajaan kepada sesiapa jua yang tidak berkuasa menerimanya atau dengan apa-apa jua cara berkelakuan salah atau tidak mematuhi mana-mana peruntukan perjanjian ini, Kerajaan boleh menamatkan perkhidmatannya dan apabila dia ditamatkan perkhidmatan mengikut peruntukan ini, segala hak dan faedah pegawai