Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Introductory Remarks

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of Ong See Seng J, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that his dismissal from the Police Force is null and void as being in breach of art 135(2) of the Federal Constitution and for consequential relief. At the conclusion of argument on 17 January 1995, we allowed the appeal, indicating at the time that reasons for the decision would be given and these are now delivered. For convenience I will refer to the parties before us as 'plaintiff and 'defendants' respectively.

The Facts

[2] The plaintiff was, until his dismissal that is the subject of the present challenge, a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force holding the rank of assistant superintendent. On 16 December 1988, the Secretary of the Police Services Commission (the 1st defendant) wrote to the plaintiff informing him of the Commission's decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff under para 26 of Cap. "D" of the General Orders to which the plaintiff was subject. In the same letter there were formulated four charges upon which the Commission required the plaintiff to respond. In a gist, the charges included gross dereliction of duty, corruption and the making of a false entry.

[3] Let it be said at once that the charges set out in the said letter, if proved, were most serious in nature warranting dismissal. Let it also be said that each of the charges was most carefully framed and with utmost particularity, so that the plaintiff should have had no difficulty in understanding their purport and in responding to them. The letter afforded the plaintiff 16 days within which to answer the charges in question.

[4] The plaintiff, having received this letter on 30 December 1988, responded to it by a letter dated 13 January 1989. Apart from giving a very full explanation to the allegations made against him, he drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the charges related to events that had allegedly taken place some two years previously and requested for an oral hearing before what he described as an "Independent Tribunal". He also requested for the station diary for the relevant period to enable him to refresh his memory of those past events to which the charges related so as to enable him to make a more meaningful response.

[5] The documents requested for by the plaintiff were made available to him in September 1989. The plaintiff then made a further response by his letter dated 16 October 1989.

[7] The trial of this action for a declaration that the dismissal was void took place on 16 June 1994. The plaintiff gave evidence and was subjected to cross-examination. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, his case was closed, whereupon Senior Federal Counsel who appeared for the defendants informed the Judge that he was electing not to call any evidence and that he would stand on his submission that there was no case to answer. The Judge then heard submissions of Counsel and reserved his decision, to 21 July 1994 on which date he dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs. No reasoned judgment was delivered. However there is a brief note of the learned Judge's reasons for the decision he arrived at which I now reproduce below:

From the evidence before me, the plaintiff has admitted that he read and he u