LAW309

NAME:
1. DAYANG ZARIFAH BINTI AWANG YUNUS (2021611668)
2. EZZA EZREEN BINTI ISKANDAR (2021818004)
3. NURSYARIEZZIANNIEY NADZIRA BINTI ISKANDAR (2021837958)
4. NURSHAMIRA BINTI MAZLAN (2021891416)

JULY 2021

Suzana is a registered nurse under the Ministry of Health. She works at the Hospital
Permai Jaya. The hospital received a complaint that Suzana was involved in inciting COVID-19
antivaccination belief to a patient at the hospital. An investigation committee was set up to
investigate the matters and found that a disciplinary offence was sufficiently made out against
Suzana.

A disciplinary proceeding, presided by Dr Shah Zainal, took place immediately. Suzana

tried to ask for a postponement because the charge was just being read. She thought if more time
was given, she would be able to prepare a proper defence. However, the Disciplinary Committee
rejected her requests.

Before the hearing started, the secretary of the Disciplinary Committee read out the charge
against her. Suzana asked for a copy of the complaint letter and the investigation committee's
report. Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Committee refused to give her the documents. The
committee members maintained that the reports were private and confidential.

At the end of the proceeding, Dr Shah Zainal recommended that Suzana be dismissed
because Suzana's action was detrimental to the government's vaccination policy. Suzana is
seeking your advice to challenge the validity of the decision. She also found out that the
complainant is a nurse at Hospital Permai Jaya, who is also Dr Shah Zainal’s wife. Advise Suzana.

(20 marks)

wswo/law309/uitms
ANSWER

ISSUE : NATURAL JUSTICE

1. inadequate notice - time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right to
adjournment @ postponed
2. notice - disclosure of evidence to the affected person
3. personal bias

INTRODUCTION
Natural justice means a procedural safeguard given to the affected person against undue or
improper exercise of power by a public authority. It is a fair administrative procedure to be
followed by the administrative body in arriving at a right decision. Natural justice is confined to
the idea of fair hearing procedure i.e a person is entitled to a hearing, and that the hearing must be
a fair hearing.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW- IST ISSUE

Time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right to adjournment. Sufficient time must
be given to the concerned before hearing.The purpose is to give reasonable opportunity to the
affected person to prepare his defence adequately.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

In Phang Moh Sin v Commissioner of Police the court found that the notice was insufficient as
the inquiry officer informed the plaintiff of the charge against him for the first time just before the
commencement of the hearing and when the plaintiff asked for an adjournment to prepare his
defence it has been refused by authority.

APPLICATION: 1ST ISSUE

In the case study, Suzana is a registered nurse under the Ministry of Health. She works at the
Hospital Permai Jaya. The hospital received a complaint that Suzana was involved in inciting
COVID-19 antivaccination belief to a patient at the hospital. An investigation committee was set
up to investigate the matters and found that a disciplinary offence was sufficiently made out against
Suzana.
A disciplinary proceeding, presided by Dr Shah Zainal, took place immediately. Suzana tried to
ask for a postponement because the charge was just being read. She thought if more time was
given, she would be able to prepare a proper defence. However, the Disciplinary Committee
rejected her requests. Here, the notice given to was insufficient since she was not given suffic ie nt
time to prepare his defence or not allowing her to postpone her case.Therefore, the notice was
invalid.

wswo/law309/uitms
PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 2ND ISSUE
Disclosure of evidence to the affected person :
Notice is a vital requirement of the right of hearing. It must be given to a party concerned before
the proceeding.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

A person must know the charges that he has to answer and he should be informed of the nature
and content of the material which is being considered against him ( Dixon v Commonwealth).

CASE: Othman Bin Ali v Telekom Malaysia Berhad, the appellant was dismissed on the ground
that he had been absent from work but the court decided it was not the real reason for his dismissa l.
He was dismissed for something he was not “charged” with in the first place and in respect of
which he was not given an opportunity to give explanation. The court decided that there was a
breach of NJ.

APPLICATION : 2nd ISSUE

In the case study, before the hearing started, the secretary of the Disciplinary Committee read out
the charge against her. Suzana asked for a copy of the complaint letter and the investiga tio n
committee's report. Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Committee refused to give her the documents.
The committee members maintained that the reports were private and confidential. Here, Suzana
was being denied her right under NJ since he was not informed of the nature and content of the
material which is being considered against him.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 3RD ISSUE

Freedom of bias is one of the two major limbs of the rules natural justice. The maxim nemo judex
in re sua literally means that a man should not be a judge in his own case i.e the opportunity to be
heard includes the opportunity to be heard by an independent and impartial decision adjudicator.

Personal bias is the tendency of the adjudicator to make decision either in favour of or against one
of the parties to the proceedings before him.Whenever a decision maker becomes personally
involved with one of the parties, the suspicion arises that a determination may not be reached
exclusively on the merits the case as discussed at the hearing.

Personal bias may arised in the following situations; family or personal relationship, friendship of
adjudicator with any of the parties and personal hostility or animosity between decision maker and
any of the parties.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

In AK Kraipak v Union of India, the effect of personal bias is that the adjudicator is disqualif ied
from adjudicating the case where there is a real likelihood that a hearing will not be fair.

In Govindraj v President, MIC, the President suspended the plaintiff ‘s membership. Later, he
presided over a meeting to consider plaintiff’s appeal against suspension.The decision made was
quashed as the President of MIC could not acted as the accuser,judge.jury and executioner in the
same case.

wswo/law309/uitms
APPLICATION : 3RD ISSUE
In the case study, She also found out that the complainant is a nurse at Hospital Permai Jaya, who
is also Dr Shah Zainal’s wife. This situation creates a personal bias as the hostility and animos ity
arised between Suzana and Dr Zainal’s wife.Therefore the proceeding is vitiated because a bias
person cannot be both an accuser and a judge at one and the same time.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Suzana can take action against the Disciplinary Commitee for breach of natural
Justice on the grounds of inadequate notice and personal bias.

wswo/law309/uitms
Feb 2023
Group members :
(1) Anis Azilla
(2) Khaireena
(3) Klaus Toepfer
(4) Nicky Lembang

PT B: QUESTION 1
On election day, a violent riot broke out between supporters of the opposing candidates in Gondor.
Inspector Aragon immediately arrested Sauron, the head of Parti Mordor for instigating the riot.
During the capture, Inspector Aragon had to use force to restrain Sauron. Sauron suffered interna l
injuries of which he died a few days later. The capture was recorded by Gollum, the Parti Mordor's
secretary, who viralled the recording over the internet. Serious allegations of misconduct were
directed towards Inspector Aragon and the integrity of the police force was compromised.
The Commissioner of Police's office issued a letter to Inspector Aragon requesting him to attend
a disciplinary hearing. On the day of the hearing, only the copy of the Board of Inquiry's report
was read to him.
Inspector Aragon denied all allegations against him. He requested for a postponement of the
hearing to enable him to prepare for his defence. He requested for a copy of the charge and a copy
of the Board of Inquiry's report. Both his requests were denied.
The Disciplinary Board proceeded with the hearing and finally dismissed him.
After his dismissal, Inspector Aragon discovered that the Disciplinary Board had also taken into
account past allegations of corruption against him in his hearing.
Inspector Aragon was extremely dissatisfied and wished to appeal against the Disciplinary Board's
decision.
Advise Inspector Aragon as to his legal rights.
(20 marks)

ANSWER

ISSUES : NATURAL JUSTICE

1. inadequate notice - time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right to adjournment
2. notice - disclosure of evidence to the affected person
3. past record as evidence

wswo/law309/uitms
INTRODUCTION
Natural justice means a procedural safeguard given to the affected person against undue or improper
exercise of power by a public authority. It is a fair administrative procedure to be followed by the
administrative body in arriving at a right decision. Natural justice is confined to the idea of fair hearing
procedure i.e a person is entitled to a hearing, and that the hearing must be a fair hearing.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW- IST ISSUE

Time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right to adjournment
Sufficient time must be given to the concerned before hearing.The purpose is to give reasonable
opportunity to the affected person to prepare his defence adequately.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

In Phang Moh Sin v Commissioner of Police the court found that the notice was insufficient as the inquiry
officer informed the plaintiff of the charge against him for the first time just before the commencement of
the hearing and when the plaintiff asked for an adjournment to prepare his defence it has been refused by
authority.

APPLICATION : 1ST ISSUE

In the case study, serious allegations of misconduct were directed towards Inspector Aragon and the
integrity of the police force was compromised.The Commissioner of Police's office issued a letter to
Inspector Aragon requesting him to attend a disciplinary hearing. On the day of the hearing, only the copy
of the Board of Inquiry's report was read to him.Inspector Aragon denied all allegations against him. He
requested for a postponement of the hearing to enable him to prepare for his defence. He requested for a
copy of the charge and a copy of the Board of Inquiry's report. Both his requests were denied. Here, the
notice given to Kamaruddin was insufficient since he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence
or not allowing him to postpone his case.Therefore, the notice was invalid.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 2ND ISSUE

Disclosure of evidence to the affected person :
Notice is a vital requirement of the right of hearing. It must be given to a party concerned before the
proceeding.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

Disclosure of evidence to the affected person :
Notice is a vital requirement of the right of hearing. It must be given to a party concerned before the
proceeding. A person must know the charges that he has to answer and he should be informed of the nature
and content of the material which is being considered against him ( Dixon v Commonwealth).

CASE: Othman Bin Ali v Telekom Malaysia Berhad, the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he
had been absent from work but the court decided it was not the real reason for his dismissal. He was
dismissed for something he was not “charged” with in the first place and in respect of which he was not
given an opportunity to give explanation. The court decided that there was a breach of NJ.

wswo/law309/uitms
APPLICATION : 2ND ISSUE
In the case study, The Commissioner of Police's office issued a letter to Inspector Aragon requesting him
to attend a disciplinary hearing. On the day of the hearing, only the copy of the Board of Inquiry's report
was read to him.Inspector Aragon denied all allegations against him. He requested for a postponement of
the hearing to enable him to prepare for his defence. He requested for a copy of the charge and a copy of
the Board of Inquiry's report. Both his requests were denied. Here, Kamaruddin was being denied his right
under NJ since he was not informed of the charge or nature and content of the material which is being
considered against him.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 3RD ISSUE

Past record as evidence
It is a duty imposed by the law on the Adjudicating Authority to disclose evidences to be used against the
affected person. The purpose is to comment, explain or rebut the matter.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

In Shamsiah Ahmad Sham, S was dismissed for negligence. The disciplinary authority took into account
her past record and she was not asked to explain. It was held by the Supreme Court that the dismissal order
was quashed. She should have been given an opportunity of stating her case regarding her past conduct
because the dismissal of a public servant was a serious matter.

In Raja Abdul Malek v S/U Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis it was held that the past record of the accused should
not be taken into account in the decision made by the administrative authority unless the person concerned
was informed of the matters.

APPLICATION

In the case study, after his dismissal, Inspector Aragon discovered that the Disciplinary Board had also
taken into account past allegations of corruption against him in his hearing. Here, there was a denial of
natural justice when the committee also referred to his past records before finally deciding his case.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Inspector Aragon can take action against the Disciplinary Board for breach of natural Justice
on the grounds of inadequate notice and using past record as evidence.

wswo/law309/uitms
Group Members:
Darylangelina (2021600186)
Nursafiqah Rasyidah (2021825686)
Shahnur Izzaty (2021814304)
Monica (2021825784)

PART B : QUESTION ONE

Kamaruddin worked as a Manager at Daya Budi Holding Bhd, an Information Technology
(IT)company in Subang Jaya. On 1 December 2021, he posted on Twitter hinting that the
company's Chief Executives Officer (CEO), Mr. Samad, used his position to manipulate clients’
personal data for his benefit. Kamaruddin also made an allegation saying that Mr Samad sold the
client's information to Padu Tech Inc., a competitor in the business.
On 2 December 2021, Mr Samad read the Twitter posting and instructed Human Resources
Department to take immediate action against Kamaruddin. On the same day, Mr Samad was called
by the Human Resources Department informing him to appear before the Disciplinary Board on 3
December 2021. Kamaruddin asked why was he needed to appear before Disciplinary Board, but
the officer-in-charge declined to explain.
On 3 December 2021, Kamaruddin received the charge letter at the proceeding. Shocked by the
nature of the charge, he asked for the proceeding to be postponed, but his request was rejected.
Kamaruddin noticed that the Chairman of the proceeding was Mr Samad.
Kamaruddin requested to call the witnesses to testify, but the proceeding panel turned down
Kamaruddin request. The panel also disallowed Kamaruddin to cross-examine any witnesses on
that day.
Kamaruddin was dismissed after the proceeding. He is very dissatisfied with the dismissal and
intents to challenge the decision of the Disciplinary Board in court.
Advise Kamaruddin.

ANSWER

ISSUE : NATURAL JUSTICE

1. inadequate notice - time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right to adjournme nt
@ postponed
2. notice - disclosure of evidence to the affected person
3. personal bias
4. right to call witness

wswo/law309/uitms
INTRODUCTION
Natural justice means a procedural safeguard given to the affected person against undue or
improper exercise of power by a public authority. It is a fair administrative procedure to be
followed by the administrative body in arriving at a right decision. Natural justice is confined to
the idea of fair hearing procedure i.e a person is entitled to a hearing, and that the hearing must be
a fair hearing.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW- IST ISSUE

Time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right to adjournment.
Sufficient time must be given to the concerned before hearing.The purpose is to give reasonable
opportunity to the affected person to prepare his defence adequately.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

In Phang Moh Sin v Commissioner of Police the court found that the notice was insufficient as
the inquiry officer informed the plaintiff of the charge against him for the first time just before the
commencement of the hearing and when the plaintiff asked for an adjournment to prepare his
defence it has been refused by authority.

APPLICATION : 1ST ISSUE

In the case study, Kamaruddin worked as a Manager at Daya Budi Holding Bhd, an Informatio n
Technology (IT)company in Subang Jaya. On 1 December 2021, he posted on Twitter hinting that
the company's Chief Executives Officer (CEO), Mr. Samad, used his position to manipulate
clients’ personal data for his benefit. Kamaruddin also made an allegation saying that Mr Samad
sold the client's information to Padu Tech Inc., a competitor in the business.On 2 December 2021,
Mr Samad read the Twitter posting and instructed Human Resources Department to take
immediate action against Kamaruddin. On the same day, Mr Samad was called by the Human
Resources Department informing him to appear before the Disciplinary Board on 3 December
2021. Kamaruddin asked why was he needed to appear before Disciplinary Board, but the officer-
in-charge declined to explain. On 3 December 2021, Kamaruddin received the charge letter at the
proceeding. Shocked by the nature of the charge, he asked for the proceeding to be postponed, but
his request was rejected. . Here, the notice given to Kamaruddin was insufficient ( one day ) since
he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence or not allowing him to postpone his
case.Therefore, the notice was invalid.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 2ND ISSUE

Disclosure of evidence to the affected person :
Notice is a vital requirement of the right of hearing. It must be given to a party concerned before
the proceeding. A person must know the charges that he has to answer and he should be informed
of the nature and content of the material which is being considered against him ( Dixon v
Commonwealth).

wswo/law309/uitms
APPLICATION : 2ND ISSUE
Kamaruddin asked why was he needed to appear before Disciplinary Board, but the officer- in-
charge declined to explain. On 3 December 2021, Kamaruddin received the charge letter at the
proceeding. Shocked by the nature of the charge, he asked for the proceeding to be postponed, but
his request was rejected. Here, Kamaruddin was being denied his right under NJ since he was not
informed of the nature and content of the material which is being considered against him.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 3RD ISSUE

Freedom of bias is one of the two major limbs of the rules natural justice. The maxim nemo judex
in re sua literally means that a man should not be a judge in his own case i.e the opportunity to be
heard includes the opportunity to be heard by an independent and impartia l decision adjudicator.

Personal bias is the tendency of the adjudicator to make decision either in favour of or against one
of the parties to the proceedings before him.Whenever a decision maker becomes personally
involved with one of the parties, the suspicion arises that a determination may not be reached
exclusively on the merits the case as discussed at the hearing.

Personal bias may arised in the following situations; family or personal relationship, friendship of
adjudicator with any of the parties and personal hostility or animosity between decision maker and
any of the parties.

CHOOSE ONE CASE :

In AK Kraipak v Union of India, the effect of personal bias is that the adjudicator is disqualif ied
from adjudicating the case where there is a real likelihood that a hearing will not be fair.

In Govindraj v President, MIC, the President suspended the plaintiff ‘s membership. Later, he
presided over a meeting to consider plaintiff’s appeal against suspension.The decision made was
quashed as the President of MIC could not acted as the accuser,judge.jury and executioner in the
same case.

APPLICATION : 3RD ISSUE

In the case study, Kamaruddin noticed that the Chairman of the proceeding was Mr Samad.This
situation creates a personal bias as the hostility and animosity arised between Kamaruddin and Mr
Samad.Therefore the proceeding is vitiated because a bias person cannot be both an accuser and
a judge at one and the same time.

wswo/law309/uitms
PRINCIPLES OF LAW : 4TH ISSUE
Right to call witness
The purpose of calling witness is to provide evidence and explanation to rebut the charge against
the affected person

If the administrative authority denied the affected person reasonable opportunity to call witness
the effect is breach of natural justice and the decision made should be quashed.In Malayawata
Steel Berhad v Union Malayawata Steel Worker the High Court quashed the Industrial Court
decision because the Industrial Court did not allow the company to call its essential witness.

APPLICATION : 4th ISSUE

In the case study, Kamaruddin requested to call the witnesses to testify, but the proceeding panel
turned down Kamaruddin request. The panel also disallowed Kamaruddin to cross-examine any
witnesses on that day. Here, Kamaruddin should be allowed to call his witness since it is relevant
and necessary evidence to rebut the allegation against him.Therefore, Kamaruddin was being
denied his right under natural justice when his request to bring witness was rejected.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Kamaruddin can take action against the company's Chief Executives Officer (CEO),
Mr. Samad for breach of natural Justice on the grounds of inadequate notice, personal bias and
right to call witness.

wswo/law309/uitms
ANSWER GUIDE

LAW309
NATURAL JUSTICE

wansal/law309/uitms 1
 CASE STUDY
Samat is a security guard at Maya Supermarket. He has been
working there for ten years. Before he joined the company he
was an army officer. On 6th December 2015, he received a letter
from the management that he has to attend a disciplinary
proceeding for his poor performance. He is required to present
himself on 8th December 2015. Samat requested that he should
be given more time to prepare his case but his request was
rejected.

wansal/law309/uitms 2
 CASE STUDY
At the hearing, he was informed that the management had
received several reports complaining that he was always asleep
while on duty. He asked for the reports in detail but the
committee members maintained that the reports were
confidential. His request to bring his friend along to give
evidence on his behalf was rejected.

wansal/law309/uitms 3
 CASE STUDY
The hearing was conducted by a disciplinary committee chaired by
Abu, his former landlord. They had not been in good terms with
each other because Abu had accused him of stealing some property
from the house when Samat was a tenant two years ago. At the
end of the hearing, the committee decided that the allegations
against him were proven. The committee also referred to his past
records as an army officer before finally deciding his case. He was
dismissed with one month’s notice.
Samat, who is dissatisfied with the dismissal, wishes to challenge
the decision.
(30 marks)

wansal/law309/uitms 4
 ISSUES
The issue in the case study is Natural Justice:
1. inadequate notice - time permitted to answer
the charge is insufficient and right to adjournment
2. notice - disclosure of evidence to the affected
person
3. opportunity to call witness
4. past record as evidence
5. personal bias

wansal/law309/uitms 5
 INTRO
Definition of NJ
Natural justice means a procedural safeguard given to the
affected person against undue or improper exercise of power by
a public authority. It is a fair administrative procedure to be
followed by the administrative body in arriving at a right decision
The objectives of natural justice are to allow the affected person
to give his side of the story and to enable the decision making
authority o determine a matter on a more informed basis; to
ensure fairness and impartiality through governing the manner
of arriving at decisions by judicial process, to avoid erroneous
conclusions and to promote confidence in the fairness of
administrative process.

wansal/law309/uitms 6
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
FIRST ISSUE- time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient
and right to adjournment
EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT CASE: CHOOSE ONE CASE ONLY
In Re Liverpool Taxi Owners’ Association it is against natural justice
to call upon the concerned person to show cause immediately and
to permit him no time to consider the charges against him.

In Phang Moh Sin v Commissioner of Police the court found that

the notice was insufficient as the inquiry officer informed the
plaintiff of the charge against him for the first time just before the
commencement of the hearing and when the plaintiff asked for an
adjournment to prepare his defence it has been refused by
authority.

wansal/law309/uitms 7
 APPLICATION OF LAW

In the case study, Samat was given two days notice ie

from 6th December to 8th December 2015 to prepare
his defence. Here, Samat was being denied his right
because the notice given to him was insufficient ( two
days) since he was not given sufficient time to prepare
his defence or not allowing him to postpone his
case.Therefore, the notice was invalid.

wansal/law309/uitms 8
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
SECOND ISSUE- disclosure of evidence to the affected person
Notice is a vital requirement of the right of hearing. It must be
given to a party concerned before the proceeding. A person
must know the charges that he has to answer and he should be
informed of the nature and content of the material which is
being considered against him ( Dixon v Commonwealth).
The particular stated in the notice of proceeding( ie charges)
should be adequate so that the affected person may be able to:
i. effectively prepare their case and answer the case of the
opponent
ii. make their representation
iii. appear at the hearing

wansal/law309/uitms 9
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A notice to be meaningful should state the grounds on
which action is proposed to be taken in clear, specific and
unambiguous terms.

In Perkayan OKS No 2 Sdn Bhd v Kelantan State Economic

Development Corp the court ruled that the notice given
to the appellant before terminating an agreement with
him was inadequate as the particulars set out therein
were unspecific , ambiguous and vague.

wansal/law309/uitms 10
 APPLICATION OF LAW
In the case study, Samat was informed that the
management had received several reports complaining
that he was always asleep while on duty. He asked for the
reports in detail, the committee members maintained
that the reports were confidential. Here, the notice given
by Maya Supermarket, requiring Samat to attend a
disciplinary proceeding for his poor performance does
not specify any particulars ground on which action was
proposed to be taken. The particulars set out therein
were unspecific , ambiguous and vague.(Mahadevan v
Anandrajan and Perkayan) The notice failed to mention
the details of the dates and times Samat was always
asleep while on duty.

wansal/law309/uitms 11
 APPLICATION OF LAW
Furthermore, when he asked for the reports in details, the
committee members maintained that the reports were
confidential.A person must know the charges that he had to
answer and he should be informed of the nature and content
of material which is he being considered against him ( Dixon v
Commonwealth)

Natural justice requires that a person be given adequate

notice of the case against him clearly setting out the
particulars of the alleged offence so that he may have an
opportunity of answering the same. Any proceeding taken
against a person without adequate notice to him infringes
natural justice thus invalid.

wansal/law309/uitms 12
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
THIRD ISSUE- opportunity to call witness
The purpose of calling witness is to provide evidence and
explanation to rebut the charge against the affected
person

If the administrative authority denied the affected person

reasonable opportunity to call witness the effect is
breach of natural justice and the decision made should be
quashed.In Malayawata Steel Berhad v Union Malayawata
Steel Worker the High Court quashed the Industrial
Court decision because the Industrial Court did not allow
the company to call its essential witness.

wansal/law309/uitms 13
 APPLICATION OF LAW

In the case study, Samat should be allowed to call his

friend as his witness since it is relevant and necessary
evidence to rebut the allegation that he was always
asleep while on duty.Therefor, Samat was being denied
his right to call witness when his request to bring his
friend along to give evidence on his behalf was
rejected.

wansal/law309/uitms 14
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
FOURTH ISSUE - past record as evidence
It is a duty imposed by the law on the Adjudicating Authority to
disclose evidences to be used against the affected person. The
purpose is to comment, explain or rebut the matter.

In Shamsiah Ahmad Sham, S was dismissed for negligence. The

disciplinary authority took into account her past record and she
was not asked to explain. It was held by the Supreme Court that the
dismissal order was quashed. She should have been given an
opportunity of stating her case regarding her past conduct because
the dismissal of a public servant was a serious matter.

wansal/law309/uitms 15
 APPLICATION

In the case study there was a denial of natural justice

when the evidences or materials to be used against
Samat was not disclose by the committee to him and
when the committee also referred to his past records as
an army officer before finally deciding his case.

wansal/law309/uitms 16
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
FIFTH ISSUE- personal bias
Freedom of bias is one of the two major limbs of the rules
natural justice. The maxim nemo judex in re sua literally means
that a man should not be a judge in his own case i.e the
opportunity to be heard includes the opportunity to be heard by
an independent and impartial decision adjudicator.

wansal/law309/uitms 17
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Personal bias may arised in the following situations;
family or personal relationship, friendship of
adjudicator with any of the parties and personal
hostility or animosity between decision maker and
any of the parties.

In R v Bow Street Stipendary Magistrate ; ex parte

Pinochet Ugarte where an adjudicator has a strong
personal interest in the proceeding before him, would
disqualify him to adjudicate the matter.
wansal/law309/uitms 18
 APPLICATION OF LAW
In the case study, the hearing was conducted by a
disciplinary committee chaired by Abu, Samat’s
former landlord, who had not been in good terms
with Samat as Abu had accused him of stealing some
property from the house when Samat was a tenant
two years ago.This situation creates a personal bias as
the hostility and animosity arised between Abu and
Samat.Therefore the proceeding is vitiated because a
bias person cannot be both an accuser and a judge at
one and the same time.
wansal/law309/uitms 19
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Samat can take action against Maya

Supermarket based on breach of natural justice on the
grounds of inadequate notice,no opportunity to call
witness, past record used as evidence and personal
bias.Therefore the decision to dismiss Samat made by
Maya Supermarket was ultra vires.

wansal/law309/uitms 20