Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

This is the judgment of the court.

This appeal does not raise any new point of law. It merely has to do with the application of settled law to the peculiar facts of this case. The broad question at issue here is whether the appellant received procedural fairness in the hands of the respondent before he was dismissed from the latter's employment. The brief facts relevant to that issue lie in a narrow compass.

At all material times the appellant was in the respondent's employment. In 1990, disciplinary proceedings were commenced by the respondent against the appellant for misconduct. Five charges were formulated and served on the appellant. In a gist, they concern a 'form guarantee' of the respondent said to have been dishonestly appropriated by the appellant and fraudulently used by him to obtain medical treatment for his wife from the General Hospital at Johor Bahru. A domestic inquiry found the appellant guilty on four charges but acquitted him of the fifth. By a letter dated 3 July 1990, the appellant was informed that he was dismissed from service and that he might avail himself of the domestic appellate machinery. The appellant then appealed, but wit