Natural justice mandates procedures in disciplinary actions including the right to be heard.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal that reversed the judgment of the High Court. The appeal arises from an action brought by the appellant, Saiman Umar in the High Court against the respondent, Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang based on the cause of action of unlawful dismissal.

[2] We shall be referring to parties in this judgment as they were in the High Court, namely the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant.

Background Facts

[3] The defendant is a body corporate established under the provisions of the Farmers' Organization Authority Act 1973 (the Act).

[4] The defendant from 28 December 1973 until 1 March 2002 employed the plaintiff. The plaintiff started his employment with the defendant as a clerk. At the time of his dismissal, that is to say on 1 March 2002, the plaintiff held the post of Assistant Officer of Economics Affairs.

[5] On 11 July 2000, the defendant initiated a disciplinary action against the plaintiff by issuing a show cause letter dated 21 June 2000 to him. It was alleged that the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of RM40,000.00 from a contractor, one Madzlan bin Abd Rahman (Madzlan) on 21 May 1990 while the plaintiff was holding the post of Pengurus Besar Pertubuhan Peladang Kawasan Mersing Utara-Endau, Johor.

[6] In the same show cause letter, the defendant formulated two charges against the plaintiff pursuant to reg 28 of the Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1994 (the Disciplinary Rules). The first charge was for behaving in a way that would raise suspicions that the plaintiff was using his official position for his own benefit pursuant to regs 4(2)(c)(ii), (d) and (f) of the Disciplinary Rules. The second charge was for putting the plaintiff in a position of financial obligation with someone who had official business with the defendant pursuant to regs 10(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Disciplinary Rules.

[7] By a letter dated 28 July 2000, the plaintiff requested for documents to enable him to prepare his representation since the alleged misconduct happened ten years earlier. The defendant by a letter dated 7 August 2000 asked the plaintiff to specify the documents, which he required. By a letter dated 8 August 2000, the plaintiff specified the documents, which he required to prepare his representation.

[8] By a letter dated 24 August 2000, the defendant turned down the request of the plaintiff on the ground that the documents requested by him were not relevant to the charges and the plaintiff was instructed to put in his representation letter within 14 days.

[9] By a letter dated 9 September 2000, the plaintiff made his representation to the show cause letter. The plaintiff denied borrowing or receiving RM40,000.00 as a loan from Madzlan in answer to the two charges. Together with his representation letter, the plaintiff enclosed a letter allegedly written by Madzlan dated 6 September 2000 and a statutory declaration by Madzlan denying that he had lent the plaintiff the said sum.

[10] The defendant's Disciplinary Committee informed the plaintiff by a letter dated 17 May 2001 that they had considered his representation and found him guilty of both charges. In the same letter, the plaintiff was given a right to mitigate within 21 days.

[11] On 31 May 2001, the plaintiff replied by stating that he was not satisfied with the Disciplinary Committee's decision and requested that the decision be reviewed.

[12] On 25 February 2002, the defendant's Disciplinary Committee informed the plaintiff that after having reviewed and deliberated on the plaintiff's appeal, they decided th