JUDGMENT

VT Singham J:

[1] In this case, the plaintiff who was a police constable of the Royal Malaysian Police Force at the Police Station Kampar was dismissed from the force with effect from 30 March 1996 under the Police (Conduct and Discipline) (Junior Police Officers and Constables) Regulations 1970 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Regulations') for breach of the Inspector General of Police standing orders 66/11 dated 11 October 1979 where the preliminary urine test by the hospital laboratory in Batu Gajah stated that it did not contain morphine and the word cannabis has been deleted (see exh. P3). However, the chemist report stated it contained 'Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinoid Carboxylic Acid' (see exh. P4).

[2] The charge against the plaintiff is as follows:

Bahawa anda sebagai seorang Konstabel di dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia, pada ketika itu berkhidmat di Balai Polis Kampar di dalam Daerah Kinta, dalam Kontinjen Perak, pada 1.2.94 jam 12.25 petang di Hospital Daerah Batu Gajah, anda telah melakukan satu kesalahan tatatertib, iaitu ingkar perintah Ketua Polis Negara bilangan KPN 66/11 bertarikh perintah 11.10.79 di mana hasil ujian awalan air kencing anda bagi mengesan penyalahgunaan dadah terhadap diri anda telah didapati mengandungi "CANNABIS" dan hasil ujian penentuan oleh Ahli Kimia, Jabatan Kimia Malaysia Ipoh, pada 9.4.94 Nombor Makmal (Ip)1491/94, mengesahkan kandungan air kencing anda mengandungi "DELTA-9 TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL CARBOYXLIC ACID" iaitu salah satu daripada jenis dadah yang dijadualkan di jadual pertama Akta Dadah Merbahaya 1952 (Akta 234), di mana perbuatan anda itu adalah tidak mematuhi arahan Ketua Polis Negara bilangan KPN 66/11 bertarikh 11.10.79, yang melarang anggota polis terlibat dalam penyalahgunaan dadah kerana menjejaskan imej Pasukan dan mengancam keselamatan Negara, dan oleh yang demikian itu anda telah melakukan kesalahan tatatertib di bawah Peraturan 2(7) Peraturan-Peraturan Polis (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib)(Pegawai-Pegawai Rendah Polis dan Mata-Mata) 1970, P.U.(A) 86 bertarikh 24.2.70 dan P.U.(A) 56 (Pindaan) bertarikh 8.2.84 dan boleh dihukum di bawah peraturan yang sama.

[3] By a letter dated 14 October 1995, the plaintiff was informed by the Chief Police Officer Perak of the proposed disciplinary proceedings to be held under the said Regulations. The disciplinary proceedings was then conducted by way of orderly room enquiry on 7 November 1995, 8 November 95, 15 November 1995, 29 March 1996 and 30 March 1996. At the close of the enquiry, the plaintiff was dismissed from the force with effect from 30 March 1996.

[4] The orderly room enquiry was conducted by the then OCPD of Ipoh, Mr. R. Nadanarajah who was delegated by the Police Service Commission to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff under the said regulations. The plaintiff was permitted to be represented at the enquiry by a police officer not above the rank of Mr.R Nadanarajah, the adjudicating officer whose rank was assistant commissioner of police (hereinafter referred to as 'the adjudicating authority').

[5] The enquiry was conducted on 7 November 1995, 8 November 1995, 15 November 1995, 29 March 1996 and 30 March 1996. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the plaintiff was found guilty of the charge and dismissed. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the decision of the adjudicating authority filed the writ of summons on 30 March 1999 at the High Court, Ipoh against the Ketua Polis Negeri Perak, Ketua Polis Negara Malaysia and Kerajaan Malaysia as the first, second and third defendants respectively. The defendants were represented by a Federal Counsel of the Attorney General's Chamber. In this case, there were four different Federal Counsels who represented the defendants until the conclusion of the trial in this Court.

[6] At the orderly room enquiry, the following documents were tendered in support of the charge:

(i) An undated letter with a copy of the charge from the adjudicating authority, Mr. R Nadanarajah th