Siti Norma Yaakob FCJ:

Two questions have been posed in this appeal and they read as follows.

(1) Whether the Disciplinary Authority, before conducting the Disciplinary Proceedings (Orderly Room Procedure) under the Police (Conduct and Discipline) (Junior Police Officers and Constables) Regulations 1970, is required to inform a Junior Police Officer such as the respondent of the possibility that he might be dismissed from service; and

(2) Whether reg. 28(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 applies to a Junior Police Officer such as the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings (Orderly Room Procedure) conducted under the Police (Conduct and Discipline) (Junior Police Officers and Constables) Regulation 1970.

The questions stem from the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 1st appellant, the adjudicating authority, against the respondent, a Lance Corporal in the Police Force, who had to answer to four charges of misconduct. He was found guilty on three of the four charges and was dismissed from the Police Force.

The respondent questioned his dismissal in the High Court and the trial judge held that the 1st appellant had not breached any procedure laid down in the Police (Conduct and Discipline) (Junior Police Officers and Constables) Regulations 1970 ("the 1970 Regulations") under which the disciplinary proceedings were held and consequently the respondent's suit was dismissed with costs.

Dissatisfied, the respondent took his case to the Court of Appeal and this time he succeeded as the Court of Appeal held that there was procedural unfairness in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the 1st appellant and declared the respondent's dismissal to be null and void. All other ancillary reliefs prayed for by the respondent in his suit were also granted by the Court of Appeal.

The procedural unfairness that forms the respondent's main complaint and which was upheld by the Court of Appeal relates to the failure of the 1st appellant to inform him before the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings as to the possibility of his dismissal or reduction in rank in the event he was found guilty on any of the charges that had been preferred against him. Before us this was the only issue argued as the other grounds of appeal raised in the Memorandum of Appeal were not submitted by either party.

In March 1997, when the disciplinary proceedings were commenced against the respondent, there were two regulations in force pertaining to matters of discipline governing members of the Police Force. The first is the 1970 Regulations made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the exercise of his powers under s. 96(1) and (2)(b) of the Police Act 1967 ("the Act"). The second, also made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, is the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("the 1993 Regulations") under cl. 2 of art. 132 of the Federal Constitution.

It is the contention of Mr. Karpal Singh, counsel for the respondent, that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent should have proceeded under the 1993 Regulations and not under the 1970 Regulations. He contended further that there is the added duty imposed by reg. 28(1) of the 1993 Regulations which requires the 1st appellant to inform the respondent of the likelihood of his dismissal or reduction in rank before the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. As the show cause letter addressed to the respondent dated 24 February 1997, contained no such warning, there had been procedural unfairness in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

All members of the Police Force irrespective of their ranks are subject to the disciplinary regulations made from time to time by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This is clear from the provisions of s. 74 of the Act which read as follows.

All members of the Force shall be subject to regulations relating to discipline as may from time to time be made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under