Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Lau Yuk Hua's case.

LAU YUK HUA V THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SARAWAK -[2011] 4 AMR 700 --YEW KEN JIE J

Held: The right  to be "heard " in a disciplinary action levelled againt a public officer need not be by way of oral evidence, and it can take a form of  representation.Thus, failure to be accorded an oral hearing does not mean that there is a denial of natural justice. The applicant was given the opportunity to be heard in that he was given the opportunity to give a written representation. Hence, there was no breach of  rule32(1) of the PSC Rules. [PSC- Public Services Commission Rules]


CASE LAW

 Najar Singh v Goverment of Malaysia & Anor [1976]  1 MLJ 203 PC -Viscount Dilhorne

The word "heard"  does not invariably connote an oral hearing.It can be used and is not infrequently used in relation to something written.

Zainal bin Hashim v Goverment of Malaysia  [1979] 2 MLJ 276 PC

The right to be heard given by Article 135(2) of the Constitution dos not require the person concerned to be given an oral hearing and it could not be argued that the failure to give the appellent an oral hearing was a denial of justice.

PSC Malaysia v Vickeswary a/p RM Santhivelu YAA Tan Sri Zaki PCA ( as His Lordship then was) held:-

"...  it is clear that it is never the intention of the legislators to give an officer under disciplinary action the right to give oral evidence.In any case as far as the deceased was concerned, he was given an opportunity and he did give a very lengthy letter explaining in detail why he could not  have committed the acts of which he was charged under. He said in his letter that he was prepared to appear  before the disciplinary authority  to answer questions  but the disciplinary authority decided from the evidence available to it that it was not necessary to hear the deceased in person."

No comments:

Post a Comment