ANSWER FOR PROBLEM QUESTION ISSUE 1- WHETHER RAHULS DISMISSAL COULD BE CHALLENGED SINCE THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT AND

THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. PROCEED TO EXPLAIN THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL JUSTICE-AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM AND THE RULE AGAINST BIAS. NATURAL JUSTICE CONTAINS TWO ELEMENTS;-NOTICE AND CHARGES 1) NOTICE MUST BE SUFFICIENT WHEREBY ONE MUST KNOW THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM CLEARLY AND BE GIVEN REASONABLE TIME TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE ON THE DAY OF THE HEARING. 2) THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD WILL ONLY BE MEANINGFUL IF THE ACCUSED KNOW THE CHARGES OR ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM. 3) CASES;- URBAN HOUSING V OXFORD COUNCIL AND SURINDER SINGH KANDA V GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA 4) THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST RAHUL IN THIS CASE ARE VAGUE, RAHUL WAS SUSPECTED OF BEING ABSENT FROM WORK AND COMMITTING BRIBERIES, BUT THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION SHOW THAT THE PROOF WAS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE CAR WAS UNDER HIS WIFES NAME . 5) RAHUL SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN REASONABLE TIME TO DEFEND HIMSELF. HE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE AND BRING WITNESSES TO TESTIFY FOR HIM. CASES E.G PHANG MOH SIN V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SHAMSIAH BT AHMAD SHAM 6) THE PROCEDURE OF THE HEARING MUST BE OBSERVED AND HEARING MUST BE CONDUCTED IN A REASONABLE AND FAIR MANNER. SINCE RAHUL WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND WITNESS THE HEARING WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN A FAIR AND JUST MANNER MAKING THE DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD TO DISMISS RAHUL INVALID. ISSUE 2;-WHETHER THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF BIAS PRESENT IN RAHULS HEARING? THE POSSIBILITY OF BIAS OCCURING ON DEVS PART WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE IN BRINGING THE ACCUSATION AND CASE AGAINST RAHUL. THE FACTS SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS BIAS SINCE THERE WAS PREVIOUS CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ANJALI AND DEV. -EXPLAIN WHAT TYPE OF BIAS IS INVOLVE HERE-IE PERSONAL BIAS.

THE TEST WHETHER THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR BIAS TO OCCUR WILL DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. CASES METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES V LANNON EXPLAIN FACTS AND DECISION OF COURT COOPER V WILSON EXPLAIN FACTS AND DECISION-IN THIS CASE THE CHIEF OF POLICE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACCUSED WAS PRESENT IN THE HEARING AGAINST ACCUSED. THE PRESENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO INCUR PRESSURE ON THE BOARD MEMBERS AND A TENDENCY FOR BIAS TO OCCUR. THEREFORE RAHUL MAY CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD TO DISMISS HIM ON THESE GROUNDS AND MAY HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO SUCCEED.