NH Chan JCA:

The plaintiff (appellant) joined the Telekoms department as a junior technician in 1964. In 1978 he was promoted to technician (special grade). At the material time, he was employed by the Government of Malaysia (the second defendant) in the general public service of the Federation as defined in art. 132(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution. As a member of the public service, General Order 23 (of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter 'D') General Orders, 1980) which follows art. 135(2) of the Constitution was applicable to him. These provisions (ie, General Order 23 and art. 135(2)) require that before he can be dismissed he must be given an opportunity of being heard.

The relevant part of his statement of claim reads:

5. On the 16th July 1986, the First Defendant issued, or caused to be issued, a written notice to the Plaintiff, under Order 26 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (General Orders, Chapter D) 1980, hereinafter referred to as the General Orders, and requesting the Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be dismissed for committing three offences on the charge enumerated therein.

6. ...

7. By letter dated the 24th day of November 1986, the First Defendant wrongfully and in breach of the various provisions of the Federal Constitution the General Orders and the rule of Natural Justice terminated the said employment and wrongfully dismissed the Plaintiff therefrom and refused to employ him any longer.

And he claims a declaration that his dismissal from government service was invalid and void.

As stated in para. 5 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff was served with the letter (which was dated 16 July 1986) informing him of the two grounds (actually, these were the only two grounds, not three as stated in the statement of claim) on which it was proposed to dismiss him from the public service and giving him twenty days from the receipt of the letter to state in writing a representation containing grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself. The two grounds of complaint read:

Pertuduhan Pertama:

Bahawa tuan, Ganasan a/l Marimuthu yang bertugas sebagai Juruteknik (Telekom), Tingkatan Kanan, Pejabat Telekom Tempatan Wilayah Timur I, Ibu Sawat Telekom, Bintang, Kuala Lumpur, pada 19-2-85, dengan bantuan Encik Windsor Lawrence Hewa yang bertugas sebagai Pekerja IMG Kumpulan III Jenis F telah membuat panggilan telefon ke Madras, India, nombor MAD 9144 25668 melalui meja ujian di Ibu Sawat Telekom, Bintang, Kuala Lumpur dan mengenakan/memasukkan bayaran sejumlah $26.25 tersebut ke bill telefon nombor 484975 kepunyaan Wah Leong Sdn. Bhd. Batu 3274 Jalan Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur.

Dengan perbuatan tuan itu, tuan telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang bertentangan dengan Perintah Am 4(2)(a), 4(2)(d), 4(2)(f) dan 4(2)(g), Perintah-Perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) (Bab 'D'), 1980.

Pertuduhan Kedua:

Bahawa tuan, Ganasan a/l Marimuthu yang bertugas sebagai Juruteknik (Telekom), Tingkatan Kanan, Pejabat Telekom Tempatan Wilayah Timur I, Ibu Sawat Telekom, Bintang, Kuala Lumpur, pada 25-3-85 dengan bantuan Encik Windor Lawrence Hewa yang bertugas sebagai pekerja IMG Kumpulan III Jenis F telah membuat dua (2) panggilan telefon ke Madras, India nombor telefon MAD 9144 25688 melalui meja ujian di Ibu Sawat Telekom, Bintang, Kuala Lumpur dan mengenakan/memasukkan bayaran sejumlah $5.25 dan $23.25 tersebut ke bill telefon nombor 422737 kepunyaan C.P. Ng & Co. Sdn. Bhd. 161, Jalan Maharajalela (Jalan Birch), Kuala Lumpur.

Dengan perbuatan tuan itu, tuan telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang bertentangan dengan Perintah Am 4(2)(a), 4(2)(d), 4(2)(f) dan 4(2)(g), Perintah-perintah Am Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib (Bab 'D'), 1980.

The letter of 16 July 1986 was issued pursuant to General Order 26(2) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter 'D') General Orders 1980.

General Order 26, which has the force of law, deals with the procedure to