Abdul Malek Ahmad JCA:

Having served in the Royal Malaysia Police from 1 October 1964 and having been promoted to the rank of Sub-inspector on 1 January 1987, one can expect the appellant to be upset when he received a letter dated 10 October 1991 on 21 October 1991 from the police disciplinary authority listing out eight disciplinary charges against him under the Police (Conduct and Discipline) (Junior Police Officers And Constables) Regulations 1970 (hereinafter 'the Regulations').

The appellant had replied on 6 November 1991 claiming trial to all eight charges and the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted on 11 and 13 November 1991 whereupon the appellant was found guilty on the first, second, third, seventh and eighth charges but acquitted on the fourth, fifth and sixth charges. The punishment imposed was a reduction in rank from Sub-inspector to Sergeant Major, the post he had held before his promotion in 1987.

It is quite unnecessary to reproduce the eight charges here and it would suffice to state that the first charge related to the appellant's failure to maintain a detective service journal between 30 October 1986 to 2 September 1989; the second concerned the failure to produce his pocket book to his superior as directed on various dates between 10 January 1988 to 2 February 1989; and the third was as a result of his failure to declare as his assets as on 2 September 1989 one Isuzu Trooper No. BCJ 2766, one Ford Laser S No. BCD 9163, one Daihatsu Charade No. WBD 6184 and one house at No. 15 Jalan Bunga Melor 8, Taman Muda Ampang, Selangor. The other five charges were as regards what allegedly took place on the morning of 7 March 1990. The fourth charge was for his failure to report for duty that date between 8a.m. and 12.30p.m.; the fifth was for his non-attendance at a briefing at 9a.m. also on that same date; the sixth was for not informing his superior between 8a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on the said date of his whereabouts; the seventh was for making a false entry in his pocket book that at 8.05a.m. on that date he was at work when he was actually at Ah Fook coffee shop opposite the police station; and the eighth was for not applying for medical leave at 12.30p.m. on that date having earlier gone for medical treatment at a private clinic.

His ex parte notice of motion dated 23 December 1991 for leave to issue an order of certiorari under O. 53 of the Rules of the High Court 1980, originally against the respondent and three others namely the Minister of Home Affairs, the Inspector-General of Police and the Government of Malaysia as well, had been granted against the respondent alone on 6 July 1993 with costs in the cause. There is nothing in the records to explain why and how the names of the other three respondents were deleted in the process.

The relevant notice of motion dated 12 July 1993 had been fixed on 26 January 1994 but was finally heard on 3 January 1995. Incidentally, these dates are given to show the unexplained delay from the time leave was applied for until the matter was eventually disposed of at first instance.

Before we proceed to discuss the merits of this appeal, it is appropriate to mention two other matters. The first is that the appellant did apply on 6 November 1991 for a week's postponement of the disciplinary hearing because the Indian police officer who was going to represent him would be on leave, because of Deepavali or the Festival of Lights. Obviously, the application was not granted as the hearing did go on the scheduled date but without the records being produced, we are unable to determine whether the officer representing him did appear or otherwise. The second is that the appellant had applied for optional retirement to take effect on 1 December 1991 by letter dated 1 December 1990 and the Public Services Department by letter dated 4 October 1991 had informed the police department that they had approved the application on 29 August 1991. This fact is important because