Mohd Jemuri Serjan SCJ:

[2] In the High Court the appellant made several assertions against the Public Services Commission. She claimed that in deciding to dismiss her the Commission took into account prejudicial and extraneous materials without giving her a reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations which were brought to the notice of the Commission behind her back. She also averred that the Commission was biased against her for having been apprised of the prejudicial material which had influenced it in its deliberations. It was contended that the grounds upon which the 1st respondent intended to take disciplinary action against the appellant in accordance with reg 30(2) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (General Orders Chapter "D") Regulations 1969 should be stated instead of proffering charges against her in the show cause letter dated 26 March 1979 and that in view of these material irregularities she was absolved from having to reply to the said show cause letter. It was further contended that art 135(2) of the Federal Constitution was infringed in that she was not afforded an opportunity to present her views on punishment before the punishment was imposed on her. Under the circumstances the punishment, therefore, violated the rules of natural justice. At the trial of the action the appellant was the sole witness called to give evidence while the respondents called no witness.

[3] At the end of the trial the High Court in a very short judgment found that the Commission in coming to its decision had not in any way acted ultra vires or mala fides and there was no evidence to suggest that the Commission was biased or prejudiced against the appellant. The learned Judge was satisfied that the appellant's conduct was not satisfactory as she had several disciplinary actions taken against her in the past and that the Commission was entitled to take into consideration the appellant's previous conduct. Because she had failed to prove her case the suit was dismissed.

[4] In the appeal before us Counsel for the appellant complained of the unsatisfactory way the judgment was written in that the judgment was sketchy, unreasoned and an unspeaking judgment as one of the grounds of appeal. In view of our conclusion in this appeal we do not consider this complaint was so serious as to amount to an injustice. We would therefore not deal with this ground at length but suffice it to say that the judgment did not in any way prejudice the appellant's case in this appeal. The allegation that the first respondent took into account prejudicial extraneous matters against the appellant, namely the appellant's past conduct without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice is, however, such a serious matter as to decide the ultimate outcome of this appeal. Bias was also raised as a ground of appeal together with breach of reg 27. These last two grounds however were not very seriously pursued.

[5] After hearing the submissions of both Counsel for the ap