Thomson CJ:

This appeal from a decision of Rigby J raises a question of some importance as to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

The respondent was at all material times, and indeed claims still to be, an Inspector in what is now the Royal Federation of Malaya Police. He was first appointed on probation in 1951 and permanently appointed to the rank of Inspector on 1 June 1953. On 7 July 1958, he was dismissed from the Force by the Commissioner of Police and it is from that dismissal that the present proceedings arise.

Up to a point the circumstances leading up to Inspector Kanda's dismissal are not very seriously in dispute.

Some time in April 1957, the Police in Penang obtained information, which clearly had some truth in it, to the effect that forged tickets in the Social and Welfare Lottery were in circulation. This was investigated and from a very early stage the respondent, Inspector Kanda, was either in charge of or otherwise personally engaged in the investigation. Eventually two men, Loh and Ang, were arrested and were committed for trial at the Penang Assize for possession of forged lottery tickets in contravention of s. 474 of the Penal Code and abetment of that offence.

The two accused were tried before Rigby J and a jury and were found not guilty and in the course of the trial it became probable that two police informers and at least two police officers had committed perjury. One of these police officers indeed admitted in Court that he had given false evidence and when subsequently prosecuted in the Magistrate's Court pleaded guilty to a charge of perjury for which he received a discharge without a conviction being recorded, in spite of which he is still a member of the Police Force. Another police witness was prosecuted for perjury but the prosecution was withdrawn apparently because it was thought it must fail on technical grounds. No proceedings were taken against the two police informers.

As a result of these events the Commissioner of Police set up a Board of Inquiry to enquire into the circumstances of the case. This Board consisted of three senior Police Officers and on a number of days during the months of December 1957 and January 1958, took unsworn statements from a number of Police witnesses including the present respondent and the two Police informers who had given evidence at the forgery trial.

This Board produced a lengthy report dealing in detail with the affairs as a whole and the parts played in it by a number of individual Police Officers. It was accepted, and indeed at that stage the point was beyond controversy, that perjury had been committed at the forgery trial, but it was thought that the Police Officers who had conducted the prosecution case at the preliminary enquiry and supplied the evidence to prosecuting Counsel at the Assizes had done so in good faith and believing the evidence to be true. As regards Inspector Kanda, however, there was evidence which, if it was true, shewed that he knew certain portions of the evidence proposed to be given at the forgery trial to be untrue, that he had encouraged the making of untrue statements and that he had kept to himself the knowledge that some of these statements were untrue. The Board described him as the "villain of the piece". They expressed the view that he had encouraged certain witnesses to give false evidence so as to "simplify the case and to cut short the evidence". As regards certain other evidence they expressed the view that his motive was "dishonestly to strengthen the case against both accused in order to ensure a conviction in Court". They concluded:

"The Board were forced to the conclusion that Inspt. Kanda is a very ambitious and a thoroughly unscrupulous Officer who is prepared to go to any lengths, including the fabrication of false evidence, to add to his reputation as a successful investigator. The Board could not help wondering how many of his previous successful cases had been ach