(delivering the judgment of the court): The respondent joined the Royal Malaysian Police Force as a constable in 1969. He was promoted to a probationary police inspector in 1976. Whilst serving in Seremban as an investigating officer, he received a letter dated May 14, 1980 from the police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur alleging him to be guilty of three instances of irresponsible conduct relating to his work as an investigating officer. The letter required him to give an explanation against the allegations.

On receipt of this letter, the respondent wrote his reply dated June 7, 1980, giving his explanation to the allegations. It was only after a lapse of more than a year that he was informed (vide the police headquarters letter dated August 21, 1981) to the effect that his explanation was not accepted and that as a punishment he was demoted back with immediate effect to his former rank of police constable, plus a total fine of three days' salary. Feeling ashamed and humiliated, he tendered his resignation in June 1983, but his resignation had yet to be accepted. Subsequently, he instituted a suit against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Government of Malaysia for wrongful dismissal, claiming that the punishments inflicted upon him were null and void because the proceedings were not carried out in compliance with the rules of natural justice.

Ajaib Singh J. who heard the suit in the court below gave judgment for the respondent and the appeal by the appellants (IGP and the Government) came before us. After hearing the arguments of both sides, we dismissed the appeal with costs and, as promised, the following are our reasons which led us to dismiss the appeal.

For being found guilty under a properly conducted disciplinary proceeding, a civil servant will be liable to any one of these ten punishments, i.e.:

(i) warning;

(ii) reprimand;

(iii) fine;

(iv) forfeiture of salary;

(v) withholding of increment;

(vi) stoppage of increment;

(vii) deferment of increment;

(viii) reduction of salary;

(ix) reduction in rank;

(x) dismissal.

(see General Orders, Chapter D, 36).

However, if a Disciplinary Authority thought that a civil servant ought to be punished with either reduction in rank or dismissal, the requirement of the Federal Constitution is that he should be given an opportunity of being heard (Article 135(a)). It is in compliance with this constitutional command that G.O.D. 27–30 were formulated. G.O.D. 27 reiterates the provisions of Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution in the following words:

"In all disciplinary proceedings under this Part no officer shall be dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action against him and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

The General Orders provide two types of disciplinary proceedings to be taken against a civil servant. For a proceeding in which no punishment of reduction in rank and/or dismissal is contemplated, the Disciplinary Authority has to proceed under G.O.D. 29. If, on the other hand, the Disciplinary Authority thinks that the misconduct of a civil servant is so serious as to merit dismissal or reduction in rank, as is the case as regards this appeal, G.O.D. 30 has to be applied. In such cases, paragraph (2) of G.O.D. 30 says as follows:

"The Disciplinary Authority shall, after considering all the available information in its possession that there is a prima facie case for dismissal or reduction in rank, cause to be sent to the officer a statement in writing, prepared, if necessary, with the aid of the Legal Department, of the ground or grounds on which it is proposed to dismiss the officer or reduce him in rank and shall call upon him to state in writing a period of not less than fourteen days a representation containing grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself."

Two issues are involved in the application of G.O.D. 30 to this case, namely, (1) wh