Lord Diplock (delivering the judgment of the Board):

This appeal is about whether the Government of Malaysia acted constitutionally in bringing to an end the employment of the appellant in the public service of the Federation. The High Court in Malaysia held that it did not; the Federal Court of Malaysia, on appeal, held that it did.

The appellant's case in the form in which it was presented in those Courts included arguments of far-reaching constitutional importance as to the legal relationship between the Government of Malaysia and members of the public services and as to the constitutional validity of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinances Nos 1 and 2 of 1969 and regulations made thereunder by the Director of Operations. The greater part of the judgments in both Courts below, involving many citations from Indian authorities, is devoted to disposing of these arguments. They were rejected by Narain Sharma J in the High Court, and by all three members of the Federal Court (Suffian LP, Lee Hun Hoe CJ and Ong Hock Sim FJ) before whom the arguments were renewed. Before their Lordships, however none of these wider propositions was persisted in.

The only argument with which their Lordships need to deal is that on which the appellant had succeeded in the High Court. In the form in which the appeal has been presented to this Board it turns upon the answer to a relatively simple question of mixed law and fact: Was the appellant "dismissed" within the meaning of that expression as used in Art. 135(2) of the Constitution? Art. 135 of the Constitution reads:-

(1) No member of any of the services mentioned in paras (b) to (g) of cl. (1) of Art. 132 shall be dismissed or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to that which, at the time of the dismissal or reduction, has power to appoint a member of that service of equal rank.

(2)No member of such a service as aforesaid shall be dismissed or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

It is common ground (a) that at the time when the Government put an end to his employment the appellant was a member of one of the services referred to in the Article; (b) that he was given no opportunity of being heard beforehand; and (c) that there is nothing in the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinances nor in any regulations made thereunder by the Director of Operations to deprive the appellant of his rights under Art. 135(2) if, by what the Government did in 1970, they "dismissed" him within the meaning of that article.

The appellant became a member of the permanent establishment of the Government of Malaysia on 1 October 1949, as clerk and Punjabi interpreter. He served as Registrar of the Sessions Court from 1 April 1961 to 30 November 1969. He was then transferred to the Office of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. On 20 March 1970 a letter was addressed to him by the Director of Public Services. It was in the following terms: -

I have been directed to inform you that in the exercise of the power conferred under s. 10(d) of the Pension Ordinance, 1951, the Government has decided to pension you off in the Public Interest. According to reg. 44 of the Public Officers Regulation (Conduct and Discipline) (General Order Ch 'D') 1969, your services will be terminated as soon as you have taken all the leave which you are eligible.

Your eligibility for the pension will be worked out according to the Pension Ordinance, 1951."

The appellant had not yet reached the age of 49. The normal retirement age is 55 and the appellant wanted to continue to be employed in Government service until then. He wrote appealing against the decision to terminate his service; but to no avail. He ceased to work in the Office of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax and his pension was dealt with in accordance with the terms of the following letter of 29 July 1970 addressed by the Director of Public Services to the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, the department