Edgar Joseph JR J:

[1] These applicants, Rohana bte Ariffin and Hashim Hussin Yaacob, both lecturers in Sociology and Development Studies at the Universities Sains, Malaysia, the respondent herein, have applied for orders of certiorari to remove into this court for the purpose of them being quashed two separate decisions of the council of the respondent university (the council), dated 10 March 1986, dismissing their appeals from decisions of the relevant disciplinary authority (the disciplinary authority).

[2] In the case of the applicant Hashim, he had been found guilty by the disciplinary authority of four of the six offences charged, namely:

(a) a first charge of making a public statement on a matter that would be detrimental to the policies and decisions of the respondent university in relation thereto and thereby committed an offence under r 18(1) of the Universiti Sains Malaysia (Discipline of Staff) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and acted so as to bring discredit to the reputation of the respondent university, and thereby committed an offence under r 4(2)(d) of the said Rules;

(b) a second charge alleging conduct which was irresponsible, an offence under r 4(2) of the said Rules;

(c) two charges of, inter alia, inciting students, on separate occasions, to boycott activities organized by the student affairs department of the respondent university which were offences under r 4(2)(g) and 4(2)(j) of the said Rules.

[3] The council, whilst confirming the findings of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority against him on the charges aforesaid, allowed his appeal against sentence by substituting, in place of the punishment of dismissal, the sentence of a warning and reduction of salary by five salary increments to last from 21 February 1986 to 20 February 1991.

[4] In the case of the applicant Rohana, she had been found guilty by the disciplinary authority of an offence of making a public statement of the policies and decisions of the respondent university in relation to a matter when such statement would be detrimental to such policies of the respondent university in contravention of r 18(1) and had thereby also acted irresponsibly in contravention of r 4(2)(g) of the said Rules.

[5] The council whilst confirming the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority against the applicant Rohana on the charge aforesaid allowed her appeal against sentence by substituting, in place of the punishment of a warning and a reduction of salary by two salary increments to last for one year from 1 February 1986, a warning and a reduction of salary by one increment for a period of one year from 21 February 1986 to 20 February 1987.

[6] Before me, the decisions of the council had been impugned on a number of grounds but having regard to the conclusions at which I have arrived regarding some of these it is unnecessary for me to deal with the rest.

[8] The basic principles may be stated thus:

(1) judicial review applies to any body of persons having legal authority derived from public law to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects whether that right is derived from statute or from the common law:

(2) the High court is not a court of Appeal from the body under review;

(3) the High court limits itself to determining whether the public authority or inferior tribunal has acted lawfully, rationally and with due regard to proper procedures;

(4) the court will not substitute its judgment or discretion for the judgment or discretion of the body under review;

(5) facts determined by the body under review are rarely open to review in the High court;

(6) the High court will intervene unless there is express statutory direction to the contrary;

(7) if there is an