Rigby J:

In this action the plaintiff claims damages as against the City Council of George Town, Penang, for wrongful dismissal.

At the time of his dismissal the plaintiff was employed by the City Council as a Building Inspector (Town Division). He had 30 years' service with the City Council and its predecessors in title, the Municipal Corp., and was due to retire in a year's time.

[After stating the facts of the case, which for the purposes of this report is summarised in the headnote above, the learned Judge continued:]

The defence raised has been twofold. First, the defendants say that they were under no obligation to set up any Committee of Inquiry before dismissing the plaintiff; that in so setting up a Committee of Inquiry they acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and essential fairness, that a man should not be condemned until he has had an opportunity of being heard. They contend that as a matter of law, upon a proper interpretation of s. 16(5) of the Municipal Ordinance, the plaintiff was at all times during his employment with the defendants liable to be removed from office without cause stated, without notice and without hearing.

Secondly, they contend that on the facts they were fully entitled to dismiss the plaintiff for proved misconduct. Since I am satisfied that this action must be dismissed on the first ground, in fairness to the plaintiff I propose, first, to say a few words on the second ground. There can be no doubt whatsoever that if, in fact, the allegations made by the two complainants against the plaintiff were true the defendants were entirely justified in summarily dismissing the plaintiff for what was, in fact, the criminal offence of corruptly attempting to obtain money for doing, or forbearing to do, an act in relation to his principal's affairs in his capacity as an officer employed by the City Council. In my view, as I have already said, it is unfortunate that the matter was not referred to the Police in the first instance for investigation and, if necessary, prosecution. I have already said, and I repeat, that I am fully satisfied that the Inquiry was properly conducted and that its members unanimously found the charge of corruption proved against the plaintiff. I am certainly not prepared to say that on the evidence before them that verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence they heard. The two complainants have given sworn testimony before me and have substantially repeated the evidence they gave before the Committee of Inquiry. Mr. Jag-Jit Singh, for the plaintiff, has urged that the story of the two complainants that they produced $50 but that the plaintiff refused to take it and sent them away to get more was, on the face of it, wholly improbable for two reasons:

(1) that in any event he would have accepted the $50 on account, even if he had asked for more; and

(2) that in any event it was most improbable that he would have sent them away to bring more money and thereby lay himself open - in the event of them reporting to the Police - to a trap to be prepared against him in the production of marked money.

He further drew attention to the fact that no complaint of corruption was made by Kim Chee Han to the Mayor on his first visit but that such complaint was only made on the second visit, which was after both the complainants had been re-served with the Notices. He submitted that the complainants were simply trying to get their own back against the plaintiff, because he had taken action against them, by making a false and malicious complaint against him. Those are matters which, no doubt, were carefully considered by the Committee of Inquiry. But they would, no doubt, have been more forcefully and convincingly urged if the plaintiff had had the advantage of being represented by Counsel before the Committee in regard to the serious charges preferred against him. That the Committee were unanimously satisfied as to the truth of the allegation