JUDGMENT

Mohd Saari Yusoff JCA:

Factual Background

At all material times the appellant ("ASP Ang") was Assistant Superintendent of Police. In his evidence, SD1, the secretary of first respondent ("PSC") deposed that upon receiving a report from secretariat IGP cawangan tatatertib, caused summary of facts, report and statement of witnesses to be circulated to members of the first respondent for the purpose of determining whether there was a prima faciecase against the appellant. Subsequently, a show-cause letter dated 30 June 1993 (p. 76 of AR) was sent to ASP Ang, in which it contained four charges. In response to the letter, ASP Ang made a representation to PSC videhis letter dated 23 July 1993 (p. 80 of AR).

On receipt of ASP Ang's letter, PSC convened a meeting to deliberate over the alleged disciplinary offences committed by ASP Ang. At that meeting, by majority decision, the members decided to dismiss ASP Ang from service. The decision was conveyed to ASP Ang videletter dated 30 December 1993 (p. 103 of AR). Significant to note that no committee of inquiry was set up. Further, it is noted that report and statement of witnesses were not supplied to ASP Ang.

With regard to the letter dated 30 December 1993 (p. 103 of AR), it merely states that ASP Ang be dismissed from service. There was no separate finding of guilt in respect of each of the four charges.

In a suit before High Court Seremban, ASP Ang claims inter aliafor the following:

i) A declaration that the plaintiff's dismissal from the Police Force is unlawful, unconstitutional, void and of no effect and that the plaintiff is still an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the Royal Malaysian Police Force and entitled to all the salaries, emoluments and benefits due as such Assistant Superintendent of Police;

ii) An enquiry to determine the salaries, emoluments and other benefits due to the plaintiff;

The suit was dismissed with cost, hence this appeal.

Issue

Issue for determination is whether the proceeding which resulted in the dismissal of ASP Ang was conducted in accordance with natural justice.

Finding

In his lengthy letter dated 23 July 1993 (p. 80 of AR), ASP Ang denied receiving any bribe. In answer to the first and second charges, in his letter, ASP Ang said that he was in possession of statutory declaration of Sanmugam in which Sanmugam denied receiving the money or giving it to ASP Ang. In both the charges ASP Ang was accused of receiving bribes through Sanmugam. Sanmugam was a police personnel who served under ASP Ang in IPD cawangan mahkamah.

Based on unchallenged evidence of Sanmugam (SP5) in the court below, Sanmugam did not give any money to ASP Ang.

With regard to third and fourth charges, they were inter-related with the earlier charges. In the fourth charge, ASP Ang was accused for failing to report about illegal gambling activities in Seremban. In his letter, he denied having any information about gambling activities in Seremban. On the basis that he was not in charge of criminal investigation, he had no access to such information. At all material times, ASP Ang was attached to IPD cawangan mahkamah as a prosecuting officer.

Under O. 26(4) of General Orders 1980, it states:

4) If the officer does not furnish any representation within the specified time, or if he furnishes a representation which fails to exculpate himself to the satisfaction of the Appropriate Disciplinary Authority, it shall then proceed to consider and decide on the dismissal or reduction in rank of the officer.

In applying O. 26(4) aforesaid to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that, by his letter dated 23 July 1993, ASP Ang had given sufficient exculpatory statement to rebut against all the four charges. On the other hand, with regard to the defence's case, we find no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the four charges.

In judicial review cases as here, the court is concerned with whether procedural fairness had been administered and the court has no j