Lamin Mohd Yunus PCA:

On 20 January 1998 we sat to hear the instant appeal to decide the following question: "What is the correct procedure for a police officer dismissed by a disciplinary body to challenge the decision ie, whether by way of declaration or certiorari or either."

The short answer is in the opinion of the Privy Council in Surinder Singh Kanda's case [1962] 28 MLJ 169 (at p. 173) expressed by Lord Denning thus:

Their Lordships notice that before Rigby J, it was suggested that the only remedy was by certiorari. But their Lordships agree with him that the remedy by declaration is available also.

In this case the Privy Council had to decide the question of dismissal of a Police Inspector which had to call in for interpretation of art. 135(1) of the Federal Constitution. In the case of Mahan Singh V. Government Of Malaysia [1973] again the Privy Council had to decide the fate of another employee in the service of the Federal Government holding the post of Senior Registrar of the Sessions Court. He was "pensioned off in the Public Interest" and he had not reached the compulsory retirement age of 55. On the facts of the case, the relevant question was whether it