Mohamed Dzaiddin Bin Haji Abdullah SCJ:

The appellant was formerly a clerk attached to the office of the Perak State Legal Adviser, Ipoh, until her dismissal from public service on 16 December 1986. It was a well-known fact that the appellant had been wearing a black "purdah" as part of her daily attire during officer hours. The "purdah" covered the whole of her body from head to foot, leaving only a slit in front of her face, exposing her pair of eyes.

On 18 February 1985 the Government of Malaysia issued Service Circular No. 2 of 1985 pertaining to dress code for civil servants. Under paragraph 2.2.1, women officers were prohibited from wearing jeans, slacks, shorts and any dress which covered the face during office hours. The service circular applied to all the staff of the State Legal Adviser's office, Ipoh. In the case of the appellant, her attention was particularly drawn to it whereby she was advised by the then State Legal Adviser not to wear any clothes which covered her face. Unfortunately, she took no notice of the advice and persisted in wearing the same attire during work on the ground that as a Muslim, she was required by the Quran and hadith of the Prophet to cover her face and not to expose it in public. In the result, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Board for Group C officers at the Attorney-General's chambers (the Disciplinary Board) decided, after considering the report on the appellant's refusal to comply with the circular, to take disciplinary action against her with a view to dismissal from service. However, in view of regulation 3(2) of the Public Services Disciplinary Board Regulations 1972, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Board had no power of dismissal. The Disciplinary Board then wrote to the secretary of the PSC on 24 August 1985 informing the latter of the Board's decision, the relevant paragraph 1 of which stated:

Saya adalah diarah dengan hormatnya memaklumkan bahawa Jabatan ini ada menerima laporan bahawa Cik Halimatusaadiah bte Hj. Kamaruddin, Pegawai Kerani Am di Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak, Ipoh, Perak, telah melanggar peraturan pakaian semasa bekerja sebagaimana ditetapkan dibawah Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bil. 2 Tahun 1985. Setelah meneliti laporan tersebut dan semua maklumat yang berkaitan, maka Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Jawatan Kumpulan 'C', Jabatan Peguam Negara, berpuashati bahawa Pegawai ini seharusnya dikenakan tindakan tatatertib dengan tujuan buang kerja.

About a year later, on 5 August 1986, the PSC sent a show cause letter to the appellant why she should not be dismissed from service. The material part of the letter stated:

Puan

Kenyataan alasan-alasan membuang kerja

Saya memaklumkan iaitu berikutan dengan laporan yang diterima, maka Suruhanjaya ini sebagai pihak berkuasa tatatertib yang berkenaan telah membuat keputusan untuk mengambil tindakan tatatertib dengan tujuan buang kerja terhadap puan di bawah Perintah Am 26, Perintah-Perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Bab 'D') 1980 atas pertuduhan berikut:

Bahawa Puan Halimatussaadiah bte Haji Kamaruddin yang bertugas sebagai pegawai kerani am, Jabatan Penasihat Undang- Undang Negeri Perak, Ipoh telah didapati mulai 18 April 1985 hingga sekarang masih memakai pakaian yang menutup muka semasa bekerja di pejabat walaupun ianya bertentangan dengan Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bil 2 Tahun 1985 sebagaimana yang telah dimaklumkan kepada puan melalui Edaran Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak bertarikh 18 April 1985. Perbuatan puan itu adalah satu kesalahan yang tidak bertanggungjawab dan engkar perintah atau berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang boleh ditafsirkan dengan munasabah sebagai engkar perintah iaitu bertentangan dengan perintah am 4(2)(g) dan 4(2)(i), Perintah-Perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Bab 'D') 1980.

2. Mengikut kehendak perintah am 26(2), Perintah-Perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Bab 'D') 1980, puan adalah diminta mengemukakan:

(a) jawap