The right to be heard under Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution does not mandate an oral hearing unless explicitly requested, reaffirming that decisions by disciplinary authorities to not call for inquiries are generally not subject to judicial scrutiny.

[1] I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment of my learned brother Mohd Ghazali bin Mohd Yusoff (FCJ), I agree that the appeal should be allowed on the premise that there was no request from the respondent for the appointment of Committee of Inquiry under o 26(5) of the General Orders 1980 . As such, the disciplinary board should not be faulted for failing to do so. I would, therefore, allow this appeal on that narrow ground.

[2] I should also add that the facts in the present case can be distinguished from that of Mat Ghaffar Baba v. Ketua Polis Negara & Anor, 2007 MarsdenLR 1488 . In that case, there was a request made by the appellant to the disciplinary authority to cross-examine the persons named in the charges proffered against him and for certain documentary evidence to be made available to him, which was denied. Similarly, in the case of Yusof Sudin v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Polis & Anor, 2011 MarsdenLR 2882 . In that case, the appellant explicitly requested for an oral hearing for the reasons stated in his letter. In both these cases, it was held that in the circumstances of the case, an oral hearing ought to have been granted. The above authorities affirmed that if the right to be heard under art 135(2) is to have a real meaning, the circumstances in each case must be fully considered before the court could come to the conclusion whether or not such right has been properly observed by the disciplinary authority. (See also B Surinder Singh Kanda v. The Government of the Federation of Malaya ; 1962 MarsdenLR 437 )

[3] In the present case, the respondent did not at any stage request for an oral hearing or for any document to be furnished to him. Therefore, he could not complain that such right was not afforded to him. It is for him to request for an oral hearing or for any document that he thinks could help him to prepare his answer to the charges levelled against him. In Mat Ghaffar Baba (supra) and Yusof Sudin (supra), a request for oral hearing was made by the officers concerned, but was denied. The courts held that such refusal was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case and the curts went on to hold that the officers, in the circumstances, had not been afforded the right of hearing in its proper sense. On this ground, the decisions of the disciplinary authority were quashed.

[4] For the above reasons, I would answer the question posed to us in the negative and the appeal be allowed with costs.

Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ:

[5] The appellants (the defendants in the originating action) are the Government of Malaysia, the Police Service Commission, the Inspector General of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, respectively. The respondent (the plaintiff in the originating action) was formerly a police officer with the Malaysian Police Force holding the rank of Inspector. I will hereafter refer to the parties as they were in the High court.

[6] On 4 November 2010, this court granted the defendants leave to appeal on the following question of law:

"Whether the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority that the case against the officer does not require further clarification through the appointment of a Committee of Investigation under GO 26(5) General Order D 1980, is subject to a review /scr