Arifin Zakaria JCA:

Background

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the learned High Court Judge, Melaka dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs. In this Judgment I will refer to the respective parties as Plaintiff and Defendants. This appeal was heard by this Court on 31 July 2003 where I sat with my learned brothers (JJCA) Abdul Kadir Sulaiman and Richard Malanjum. By a unanimous decision we allowed the plaintiff's appeal with costs both here and in the Court below. We made an order in terms of prayers (1) and (2) of the claim coupled with other consequential orders. It was not until recently that I have been asked to write this Judgment. This explains the unnecessarily long delay in writing this Judgment.

The Facts

[2] The facts relevant to this appeal are briefly as follows. The plaintiff was at all material times a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force holding the rank of Police Inspector By a letter dated 31 July 1993, the 1st Defendant directed the plaintiff to show cause why disciplinary action with a view to his dismissal ought not be taken against him. Six charges were levelled against him for corruption, dereliction of duties, failure to report gambling activities and for failing to take the necessary action against certain named persons. The plaintiff was given 16 days from date of receipt of the letter to furnish his answer to all the charges. Apparently the disciplinary action was taken under General Order 26 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter "D") General Orders 1980.

[3] By letter of 14 August 1993, the plaintiff furnished his representations in respect of all the charges. In short the plaintiff denied all the charges made against him and furnishing reasons in support of the same. What is crucial is that in addition to his reply, the plaintiff in para 5 of his letter wrote:-

5. Seandainya representasi saya ini tidak diterima oleh Yang Amat Berbahagia Tun, dan hukuman yang akan dikenakan ke atas saya masih di bawah Perbekalan 26, Perintah-Perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Bab 'D') 1980 saya memohon/menuntut supaya saya diberi satu peluang yang munasabah untuk didengar dalam satu perbicaraan secara lisan diadakan. Ini akan memberi saya peluang menyoal balas (cross-examine) saksi-saksi yang dikatakan telah membabitkan saya dalam keenam-enam alasan serta meminta semua keterangan/bukti yang ada, memandangkan hukuman yang akan dijatuhkan melibatkan mata pencarian saya (livehood) dan juga nama baik (reputation) saya. (emphasis added)

[4] By this he asserted that in the event that his explanation is deemed insufficient to exculpate himself from those charges he prayed that an oral hearing be given to him to enable him to cross-examine all witnesses that had implicated him in the alleged wrong doings and further he requested for all evidence/proof be made available to him in view of the seriousness of the charges and the penalty that may follow.

[5] The 1st Defendant ignored the plaintiff's request as per para 5 of his letter and proceeded to consider the representations made by the plaintiff as contained in his letter of 14 August 1993. Having done so, the 1st Defendant by letter of 5 October 1993 informed the plaintiff of the decision of the 1st Defendant in regard to the disciplinary action. The plaintiff was found guilty of all the first three charges and that the other three charges were withdrawn (digugurkan). In the result the plaintiff was dismissed from service with effect from date of receipt of the letter

Plaintiff's Case

[6] The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the decision of the 1st Defendant and commenced this action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. In this action the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that his dismissal from the Police Force is unlawful, unconstitutional, void and of no effect, and that for all intent and purposes he is still a police officer of the rank of Police Inspector

[7] In support the plaintiff advanced, inter alia, the follow