JUDGMENT

Raja Azlan Shah CJ (Malaya):

This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Judge dismissing an application by the plaintiff (appellant before us) for summary judgment in an action brought by the appellant against the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (respondents before us) for a declaration that the purported dismissal by the respondents (whom we shall call "the University") of the appellant was ultra vires, illegal and void and that the appellant is entitled to be paid his salary and all emoluments as from the date of the purported dismissal.

The appellant was during the material period an Assistant Lecturer employed by the University. He was granted leave for period 21 to 24 June 1978, for the purpose of participating in the General Election. As he found the period insufficient he sent a telegram requesting for extension of leave which request was refused. Unfortunately, the letter refusing the leave was never received by the appellant but nevertheless he proceeded to go on leave without approval. On 13 July 1978, the secretary of the disciplinary committee wrote a letter to the appellant to show cause in writing why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. On 25 July 1978 he replied giving his explanation. After a period of 8 months the appellant received a letter dated 13 February 1979, stating that the University Council at its meeting held on 22 January 1979 considered the decision of the disciplinary committee on the complaint regarding the appellant's absence without leave and the University Council decided to terminate his employment with effect from 15 February 1979. We reproduce excerpts of the said letter:

Encik Fadzil bin Mohd. Noor,

Pusat Pengajian Kemanusiaan,

Universiti Teknologi Malaya.

Tuan,

Adalah dimaklumkan Majlis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia telah pun mengadakan satu Mesyuarat Khas pada 22 Januari 1979, bagi menimbangkan perakuan yang dikemukakan oleh Lembaga Jawatankuasa Tatatertib mengenai tuduhan bahawa tuan telah mengengkari arahan pihak Universiti dan seterusnya tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kebenaran daripada 26 Jun hingga 10 Julai 1978.

...

Setelah mengkaji perkara ini dengan teliti Majlis telah mendapati bahawa adalah sabit kesalahan tuan terhadap tuduhan mengengkari arahan pihak Universiti dan seterusnya tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kebenaran daripada 26 Jun 1978, hingga 10 Julai 1978.

... Oleh demikian dengan sabitnya kesalahan tuan itu Majlis berpendapat tidaklah ada jalan lain yang sesuai diambil melainkan tuan dibuang kerja. Dengan itu inilah di-maklumkan bahawa tuan adalah dibuang kerja oleh Majlis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia mulai daripada 15 Februari 1979.

Yang benar,

Sd. (Ainuddin bin Abdul Wahid)

Naib Cansellor.

b.p. Majlis Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

On 17 July 1979, the appellant filed a specially endorsed writ in which he asked for a declaration mentioned above. On 8 August 1979, he unsuccessfully applied by way of summons-in-chambers for summary judgment in terms of the statement of claim.

The argument on the appeal ranged over wide matters, but as it developed it became apparent that the appeal should be disposed of on a ground relating to ultra vires and that it was unnecessary to call on Counsel to argue other issues.

The question of whether or not the purported dismissal was validly made is now in substance the question raised in this appeal.

It is plain from the course of events, as set out in the judgment of the learned Judge, that the whole matter was dealt with by the disciplinary committee, purporting to act as the delegate of the University Council. Thus the question arises whether the disciplinary authority of the University in respect of a member of the staff was in law a delegated power of the disciplinary committee. The learned Judge seems to think that the disciplinary authority is vested in the University Council and that the Council had power to delegate and did in fact delegate it to the disciplinary committee by virtue of s. 16A of the Uni