lOMoARcPSD|7264414

Contoh Jawapan Assignment LAW 309

Principles of Administrative Law (Universiti Teknologi MARA)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

QUESTION 1
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

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

th
himself on 8 December
2015. Samat
requested that he should
be given more time to
prepare his case but his
request was
rejected.
At the hearing, he
was informed that the
management had
received several
reports
complaining that he was
always asleep while on

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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.
The hearing was
conducted by a
disciplinary committee
chaired by Abu, his
former

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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 )
QUESTION 1
Samat is a security guard
at Maya Supermarket. He

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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
th
himself on 8 December
2015. Samat

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

requested that he should

be given more time to
prepare his case but his
request was
rejected.
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

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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.
The hearing was
conducted by a
disciplinary committee
chaired by Abu, his
former
landlord. They had not
been in good terms with

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

his case. He was

dismissed with one
month’s notice.
Samat, who is dissatisfied
with the dismissal,
wishes to challenge the
decision.
( 30
marks )
QUESTION 1: 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, hereceived a
letter from the management that he has to attend a disciplinary proceeding forhis poor performance. He
is required to present himself on 8th December 2015. Samatrequested that he should be given more
time to prepare his case but his request wasrejected.

At the hearing, he was informed that the management had received several
reportscomplaining that he was always asleep while on duty. He asked for the reports in detailbut the
committee members maintained that the reports were confidential. His request tobring his friend along
to give evidence on his behalf was rejected.

The hearing was conducted by a disciplinary committee chaired by Abu, his formerlandlord. They
had not been in good terms with each other because Abu had accused himof stealing some property
from the house when Samat was a tenant two years ago. At theend 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 decidinghis case. He was dismissed with one month’s notice.Samat, who is
dissatisfied with the dismissal, wishes to challenge the decision. ( 30marks )

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

HOW TO ANSWER
ISSUES- NATURAL
JUSTICE
1. inadequate notice -
time permitted to answer
the charge is insufficient
and right to
adjournment
3. notice - disclosure of
evidence to the affected
person
4. opportunity to call
witness
5. past record as
evidence

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

6. personal bias
HOW TO ANSWERISSUES-

NATURAL JUSTICE

1. inadequate notice - time permitted to answer the charge is insufficient and right toadjournment

3. notice - disclosure of evidence to the affected person

4. opportunity to call witness

5. past record as evidence

6. personal bias

ISSUE is Natural Justice

Issue 1: Notice - insufficient time & right to adjourment

Issue 2. Inadequate notice - rights to know the charge

Issue 3: Rights to the affected person to call witness

Issue 4: Personal bias

 Take note main issue is Natural Justice & don forget to state the main issue.Lepas tubaru kamu
state the sub issues ( if x state main issue u will get less mark )
 Tk note that NOTICE ada 2 parts that is TIME & CHARGE
 If the affected person x di beri masa yg cukup @ x di bnrkan adjourment makna nya insufficient
or inadequate notice & also if the affected person was not inform abtallegations @
charge then the notice are also insuffucien.

INTRODUCTION

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

The objectives of natural justice are to allow the affected person to give his side of
thestory and to enable the decision making authority o determine a matter
on a moreinformed basis; to ensure fairness and impartiality through governing

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

the manner of arriving at decisions by judicial process, to avoid erroneous

conclusions and to promoteconfidence in the fairness of administrative process.

The components of natural justice are :

a) the rule of fair hearing to both sides or audi alteram partem ( the rule that no
oneis to be condemned unheard)
b) the rule against bias or nemo judex in causa sua ( no one may be a judge in
hisown case)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

FIRST 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

givereasonable opportunity to the affected person to prepare his defence adequately

In Re Liverpool Taxi Owners’ Association it is against natural justice to call upon

theconcerned person to show cause immediately and to permit him no time to consider
thecharges against him.

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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

APPLICATION

In the case study, Samat was given two days notice ie from 6th December to 8th
December2015 to prepare his defence. Here, the notice given to Samat was insufficient
( two days)since he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence or not allowing
him topostpone his case.Therefore, the notice is invalid.

SECOND ISSUE- disclosure of evidence to the affected personNotice is a vital

requirement of the right of hearing. It must be given to a partyconcerned
before the proceeding. A person must know the charges that he has to answerand he
should be informed of the nature and content of the material which is beingconsidered
against him ( Dixon v Commonwealth).

The particular stated in the notice of proceeding( ie charges) should be adequate so

thatthe affected person may be able to:

i. effectively prepare their case and answer the case of the opponent
ii. make their representationiii.

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

iii. appear at the hearing

A notice to be meaningful should state the grounds on which action is proposed to

betaken in clear, specific and unambiguous terms.

Exm cases: In Perkayan OKS No 2 Sdn Bhd v Kelantan State Economic

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

If the notice is in adequate, the decision will be invalid as it is against the natural justice
(Chong Kok Lin & Ors v Yong Su Hian)

APPLICATION

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 noticegiven by Maya Supermarket, requiring Samat to attend a disciplinary
proceeding for hispoor performance does not specify any particulars ground on which
action was proposedto 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 thedates and times Samat was always asleep while on duty.

Furthermore, when he asked for the reports in details, the committee

membersmaintained that the reports were confidential.A person must know the charges
that he hadto answer and he should be informed of the nature and content of material
which is hebeing considered against him ( Dixon v Commonwealth.

Natural justice requires that a person be given adequate notice of the case against
himclearly setting out the particulars of the alleged offence so that he
may have anopportunity of answering the same. Any proceeding taken
against a person withoutadequate notice to him infringes natural justice thus invalid

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

THIRD ISSUE- opportunity to call witness

The purpose of calling witness is to provide evidence and explanation to rebut the
chargeagainst the affected person.

If the administrative authority denied the affected person reasonable opportunity to

callwitness the effect is breach of natural justice and the decision made should be
quashed.InMalayawata Steel Berhad v Union Malayawata Steel Worker the High Court
quashedthe Industrial Court decision because the Industrial Court did not allow the
company tocall its essential witness.

APPLICATION

In the case study, Samat should be allowed to call his friend as his witness since it
isrelevant and necessary evidence to rebut the allegation that he was always asleep
whileon duty.Therefor, Samat was being denied his right to call witness when his
request tobring his friend along to give evidence on his behalf was rejected.

FOURTH ISSUE - past record as evidence

It is a duty imposed by the law on the Adjudicating Authority to disclose evidences to

beused 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

authoritytook into account her past record and she was not asked to explain. It was
held by theSupreme Court that the dismissal order was quashed. She should have
been given anopportunity of stating her case regarding her past conduct because the
dismissal of apublic servant was a serious matter.

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

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

APPLICATION

In the case study there was a denial of natural justice when the evidences or materials
tobe used against Samat was not disclose by the committee to him and when the
committeealso referred to his past records as an army officer before finally deciding his
case.

FIFTH ISSUE- personal bias ( Lelaki yang menjadi hakim)

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

Bias is of three types : pecuniary bias, personal bias, policy bias.

Personal bias is the tendency of the adjudicator to make decision either in favour of
oragainst one of the parties to the proceedings before him.Whenever a decision

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7264414

makerbecomes personally involved with one of the parties, the suspicion

arises that adetermination may not be reached exclusively on the merits the case as
discussed at thehearing.

Personal bias may arised in the following situations; family or personal

relationship,friendship of adjudicator with any of the parties and personal
hostility or animositybetween decision maker and any of the parties.

In R v Bow Street Stipendary Magistrate ; ex parte Pinochet Ugarte where an

adjudicatorhas a strong personal interest in the proceeding before him, would disqualify
him toadjudicate the matter.

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.Thedecision made was quashed as the President of MIC could
not acted as theaccuser,judge.jury and executioner in the same case.

APPLICATION

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
accusedhim of stealing some property from the house when Samat was a
tenant two yearsago.This situation creates a personal bias as the hostility and
animosity arised betweenAbu and Samat.Therefore the proceeding is vitiated because
a bias person cannot be bothan accuser and a judge at one and the same time.

In conclusion,

I would advise Samat to take action against Maya Supermarket on theground of

breach of natural justice on the groundsof

Downloaded by Ayu Maisara ([email protected])