Viscount Dilhorne (delivering the judgment of the Board):

The appellant was appointed a police constable in the Royal Malaysian Police Force on 1 March 1962. In 1971 he was charged with an offence under s. 353 of the Penal Code of Malaysia. To that charge he pleaded guilty and he was discharged conditionally upon his entering into a bond in the sum of $500 for a period of two years. On 22 December 1971 he received notice by letter dated 20 December that he was suspended from duty with effect from 16 December 1971 the date on which he had pleaded guilty, on account of his conviction on that charge.

On 28 December 1971 the Chief Police Officer at Selangor wrote to the appellant saying that he intended to take action to dismiss the appellant from the Royal Malaysian Police on account or his conviction and telling him that he could make any representations with regard thereto in writing within fourteen days.

On 30 December 1971 the appellant submitted representations and on 20 January 1972 a letter signed by SW Moreira, then Deputy Chief Police Officer at Selangor, was sent to him. It contained the following sentence: "I hereby make an order of `dismissal' with effect from 16 December 1971." The appellant was also told in this letter that he could appeal from this decision within ten days. He did so and submitted written representations to the Inspector General of Police. On 7 February 1972 he was told by letter by the Chief Police Officer that his appeal had been considered by the Inspector General and dismissed.

On 9 August 1972 the appellant started an action against the Chief Police Officer and the Government of Malaysia in which he claimed a declaration that his dismissal from the Royal Malaysian Police was void and inoperative and an order that an account be taken of the salary and emoluments due to him from the date of his purported dismissal. Later he discontinued his action against the Chief Police Officer.

In para. 7 of his statement of claim it was alleged that the letter of 20 January 1972 dismissing him had been signed by SW Moreira "for and on behalf of the first defendant", the Chief Police Officer. It was alleged that the Chief Police Officer had no power to dismiss him and that his dismissal was contrary to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. It was asserted that only the Police Force Commission had power to dismiss him and that, contrary to the requirements of natural justice, he had not had a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or to make representations with regard to his dismissal.

The trial of the action took place in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur before Abdul Hamid J. The appellant gave evidence and admitted that he had pleaded guilty to the offence with which he had been charged. He complained that he had not been given an oral hearing before he was dismissed from the police force. SW Moreira was called as a witness for the appellant. He said that it was the Chief Police Officer's decision that the appellant should be dismissed and that the letter of 20 January 1972 which he signed, was written by him for and on behalf of the Chief Police Officer. Despite this evidence and the allegation in the statement of claim, in the hearing before their Lordships it was contended that the appellant had been dismissed by SW Moreira and that consequently his dismissal was invalid. It suffices to say that it is clear beyond all doubt from the evidence that he was dismissed by the Chief Police Officer.

Abdul Hamid J gave judgment on 21 March 1975 in favour of the appellant on a ground on which, he said, Counsel for the appellant had not made any submissions to him.

Article 135(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that:

No member of any of the services mentioned in paras. (b) to (h) of cl (1) of art. 132 [one service mentioned is the police force] shall be dismissed or reduced in rank by an authority sub-ordinate to that which, at the time of the dismissal or reduction, has power to appoint