JUDGMENT

Raja Azlan Shah LP:

The appellant is a teacher at Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (China) Naam Kheung, Batu 3½, Jalan Cheras, Kuala Lumpur. He was ordered to go on transfer to Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (China) Chung Hwa, Jerteh, Trengganu, videSelangor Education Department letter dated 12 January 1980. He refused to comply with the transfer order. He appealed to the education authority to cancel the said order but was not successful. On 11 April 1980, the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Education directed him to present himself to the Headmaster of the school in Jerteh as early as possible. He again refused to do so. In the meanwhile, on 14 April 1980, he filed a suit in the High Court, Kuala Lumpur asking for a number of declarations, the main one being the declaration that the purported transfer was void and of no effect. While the suit was still pending the Education Service Commission on 9 June 1980, sent a notice to him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the teaching service. The notice also carried several charges against him relating to acts purportedly in violation of several provisions of the Public Officer (Behaviour and Discipline) Regulations otherwise known as General Order Cap. D. The several charges against the appellant concerned primarily with the non-compliance of the transfer order and the subsequent conduct and acts of the appellant. On 29 September 1980, the appellant applied to the High Court under O. 53r. 3 of the Rules of the High Court 1980, to commit the respondents for alleged contempt of Court. The grounds for the application for committal are set out in the statement which can be summarised briefly as follows:

(1) Knowing that there was a pending suit in the High Court for declarations on the purported order for transfer the respondents had by sending the notice to show cause dated 9 June 1980, prejudged the issues which were in fact the subject matter of the suit then pending;

(2) The action of the respondents clearly interfered with the true course of justice and the lawful process of Court;

(3) The action of the respondents were clearly calculated to hinder the Court in the administration of justice adversely affecting the authority and dignity of the Court; and

(4) The action of the respondents clearly prejudiced the merits of the applicant's case pending before the Court.

Wan Suleiman FJ who heard the application held:

that on the score of the restricted scope of publication alone there cannot be contempt for by no stretch of the imagination can such publication pose any sort of risk of interference with the proper administration of justice. What was called by applicant's Counsel publication was in fact intimation to the applicant of charges of a departmental character proposed to be brought against him.

And in another passage of his judgment he said:

Examined in the light of Lord Diplock's definition of contempt of Court cited earlier (i.e. Attorney-General v. Times Newspaper Ltd.[1973] 3 All ER 54 neither tends to undermine the system for the administration of justice by Courts of law and the maintenance of public confidence in it nor does it inhibit citizens from availing themselves of that system for the settlement of their disputes.

Before we consider the statements carried in the show cause notice and the nature of those statements we would briefly deal with the functions of the Education Service Commission. The Education Service is one of the public services enumerated in Article 132 of the Federal Constitution. It is a body established under Article 141A of the Constitution whose jurisdiction extends to all persons who are members of the education service. The functions of a service commission are set out in Article 144 of the Constitution. It is clearly expressed in Clauses (1) of the Article that one of the constitutional functions of a Service Commission is to exercise disciplinary control over members of the service to which its jurisdiction extends.

The lett