The right to be heard does not necessitate an oral hearing; procedural fairness is satisfied with written representations when adequate opportunity to present one's case is afforded.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant, Vijayarao a/l Sepermaniam, against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal and affirming the decision of the High Court whereby his application for judicial review against the decision of the respondent was dismissed. For the purpose of this judgment, the respondent will be referred to as the PSC.

[2] In his judicial review application, the appellant was seeking, inter alia, for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the PSC in dismissing him from his service at the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and for a declaration that his dismissal from the public service was unlawful, unconstitutional and void.

[3] The High Court dismissed his application with costs. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

[4] Leave to appeal to this Court was granted on 19 June 2017 on the following questions:

(i) Whether the appellant had the constitutional right to appeal to the Appeal Board against the decision of the PSC under art 144(5B) (ii) of the Federal Constitution ?; (Question 1) and

(ii) Whether in view of art 132(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution , the appellant ought not to be dismissed from public service without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard which includes the right of appeal as provided by art 144(5B)(ii) of the and reg 14 of the Public Services and Disciplinary Board Regulation 1993. (Question 2)

Background Facts

[5] The appellant was an investigating officer (Gred P44) of the MACC. On 6 August 2012, the secretary of the PSC wrote to the appellant informing him that the PSC had received a report to the effect that the appellant had committed disciplinary offences. The appellant was also informed of the PSC's decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against him under reg 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (PU(A) 395) (the POCD Regulations).

[6] In the same letter, the PSC framed five charges against the appellant and consequently the appellant was requested to show cause and to make representation as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him and why he should not be dismissed or reduced in rank. Briefly, the essence of the five charges related to issues of irresponsibility and insubordination under reg 4(2)(g) and (i) of the POCD Regulations; and a conduct that would bring the public service into disrepute under reg 4(2)(d) of the same Regulations.

[7] The appellant was given 21 days from the date of the said letter to make representation in writing to the PSC stating the grounds on which he wished to rely to exculpate himself on the charges against him ("yang mengandungi alasan-alasan yang tuan hendak gunakan untuk membebaskan diri tuan".)

[8] The appellant, on 3 September 2012, replied to the show-cause letter. In his 28 pages letter, the appellant categorically denied all the five charges against him. In defending himself, he gave an elaborate representation on each charge. The appellant requested for relevant documents that formed the subject matter of the charges against him to be supplied to him. The appellant also requested that he be accorded an oral hearing to enable him to make appropriate representations on each cha