lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

1) MUHAMMAD HAZIQ FIKRI BIN HISHAMUDDIN 2019271186

2) ALYA DIYANAH BT SHAHRONNIZAL 2019420712
3) IZZAH SYAMIMIE BT ROSENI 2019287526
4) ANIS MAISARA BT ASMAWI 2019416718

(JUNE 2018)
PART B (QUESTION 1)

Puan Ratna, a teacher at the Sekolah Kebangsaan Batu Tawar (SKBT) was recently given a
letter requesting her to attend a hearing within two days to answer a charge that she had
allegedly punished a student for stealing her Coach handbag.

Puan Ratna went to the principal's office to obtain further clarification on her charge but was
simply told by the principal's secretary to attend the hearing.

On the day of the hearing, Puan Ratna requested to question the student, Rina Natasha who had
filed the complaint against her. Puan Ratna's request was denied because SKBT was of the
view that it had to protect the identity of Rina Natasha as she was still under age.

After the hearing, Puan Ratna found out that Rina Natasha had previously filed another
complaint against her for unfair treatment to Encik Hashim, one of the panel members of the
SKBT Disciplinary Board.

After hearing Puan Ratna's explanation, the SKBT Disciplinary Board decided to suspend Puan
Ratna for two months. Puan Ratna was very dissatisfied with the decision and seeks your legal
advice. Advise Puan Ratna as to her legal rights.

(30arks)
1. ISSUES 1

“Puan Ratna, a teacher at the Sekolah Kebangsaan Batu Tawar (SKBT) was recently given a
letter requesting her to attend a hearing within two days to answer a charge that she had
allegedly punished a student for stealing her Coach handbag.”

ISSUE:

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)

 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

The issue is whether Puan Ratna can challenged Sekolah Kebangsaan Batu Tawar under the
ground of charge notice?

LAW:

Rules of natural justice refers to the procedural fairness in making sure that the decision maker
makes the fair decision. In other word, rule of Natural Justice will act as a procedural safeguard
towards the improper exercise power by public body which it protects the individual right and
increase their confidence in the process. There are two elements of rules of Natural Justices
which are Audi Alteram Partem or right to be heard and the other is Nemo Judex in Causa Sua
or rules against bias. Right to be heard is divided into two which are notice and hearing. Under
the notice, it has two element which are charge and time.

The ground mean on Which action is proposed must be communicated to the person concerned.
If it transpires later that action was taken on a ground which has not been communicated earlier,
then the action usually will be held to be invalid. Based on the case Maradana Mosque
Trustees v Badi-ud-din Mahmud, the managers of a school were called upon by the Minister
to explain why they had failed to pay the salaries of the teachers by the specified date. The
managers explained but the government nonetheless took over the school. It later transpired
the government had taken over the school on two grounds, but explanation called for from the
managers related to only one ground while the other was neither communicated to them nor
were asked to explain to it. The managers thus had no notice of one of the grounds which
influenced the government’s decision.

The government decision was quashed as the managers were not given notice of the ground
which was a more ‘far-reaching matter’ and which influenced the Minister in making the order.

APPLICATION:

Based on the present case, we can see that there is an incomplete notice to Puan Ratna under
the ground charge. It is because, she only received a notice stating briefly that she has to attend
a hearing within two (2) days without any explanation on her case. She did not get the clear,
specific and unambiguous terms from the hearing board. As when Puan Ratna went to the
principal’s office to obtain further clarification on her charge but was simply told by the
principal’s secretary to attend the hearing. Due to this, we can state that the action taken by the
SKBT Disciplinary board was invalid.

CONCLUSION:

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)

 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

In conclusion, Puan Ratna can challenged SKBT Disciplinary board under the ground of
incomplete charge in issue number 1.

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)

 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

2. ISSUE 2:

Puan Ratna went to the principal's office to obtain further clarification on her charge but was
simply told by the principal's secretary to attend the hearing.

ISSUE:
Whether Puan Ratna has the right to be heard under notices (time) in Rules of Natural Justice?
LAW:
For an element of time, the notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with its
requirement. Meaning that, a sufficient time must be given to the concerned person to prepared
defence and file objections. Only two days' notice may be quite insufficient and unreasonable.
For the case of Phang Moh Sin V Commissioner of Police which is held in Singapore, the
plaintiff challenged his dismissal from the ground, inter alia, of breach of natural justice. The
plaintiff asked for an adjournment to prepare his defence but it was refused and was never given
a copy of the charge. In addition, the inquiry officer also informed him of the charge against
him for the first time immediately before the commencement of the hearing. Hence, the court
quashed the proceedings on the ground of insufficient notice. It further held that even if the
plaintiff was aware of the subject-matter that was quite a different matter from knowing the
precise charge against him and the penalty to which he could be liable on conviction.

APPLICATION:
For notice in the context of time, this notice must provide a reasonable opportunity. That is,
sufficient time must be given to the person concerned to complete the defence and file and
objection on the case in which he or she is involved. In this case Puan Ratna had requested to
question the student, Rina Natasha who had filed the complaint against her. But Puan Ratna’s
request was denied as SKBT Disciplinary board was of view that it had to protect the identity
of Rina Natasha as she was still underage. This matter is unreasonable and unfair to Puan Ratna,
as she should have the opportunity to question the student who file a complaint against her as
she is not given the opportunity to prepare for her defence.

CONCLUSION:

Puan Ratna may successfully challenges SKBT’S Disciplinary decision to suspend her under
the right to be heard under notices (time) in Rules of Natural Justice.

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)

 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

3. ISSUES 3:
On the day of the hearing, Puan Ratna requested to question the student, Rina Natasha who had
filed the complaint against her. Puan Ratna's request was denied because SKBT was of the
view that it had to protect the identity of Rina Natasha as she was still under age.

ISSUE:

The issue is whether Puan Ratna can challenge the decision made by Disciplinary Board under elements
Disclosure of materials to the party the ground of natural justice of charge against her.

LAW:

Disclosure of materials to the party: All materials relied upon by an adjudicating authority for giving its
decision against a person should be brought to that person’s notice and that he should be given an
opportunity to comment, criticize, explain or rebut it. It is necessary that the authority should not rely
on any material against a person without informing him of it. If, without disclosing any evidence to the
party, the authority takes materials into consideration, and decides the matter against the party, the
decision would be vitiated, as it amounts to a denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to
meet the case against him. This can be seen in the case of Lord Denning in B Surinder Singh Kanda
v The Government of the Federation of Malaya which the wronged party “must know what evidence
has been given and what statements have been made affecting him. The judge or adjudicator must not
hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other.” In another case of
Raja Abdul Malek v Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis, where a dismissal order was quashed
on the ground that the disciplinary authority took into consideration materials, besides the charges
communicated, without disclosing them.

APPLICATION:

Based on this case, Puan Ratna has the rights to ask Rina Natasha regarding the complaints. This can be
seen in the case Raja Abdul Malek v Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis, where they should
have acted with “openness, impartiality and fairness”, and this cannot be seen in this case because the
information is disclosed, thus making Puan Ratna loss her rights. Also, as accordance in the previous
case of B Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government, Puan Ratna did not know what kind of
statements have been made affecting her. The Disciplinary Board should allow Puan Ratna to meet Rina
in public with witnesses, so that everything is not disclosed, and justice can be served.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, Puan Rattna can challenge the case on the element on Disciplinary Board under
Disclosure of materials to the party of the rulers of natural justice in issue 3, because Puan Ratna has a
right to seeking information to defence herself.

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)

 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

4. ISSUES 4

After the hearing, Puan Ratna found out that Rina Natasha had previously filed another
complaint against her for unfair treatment to Encik Hashim, one of the panel members of the
SKBT Disciplinary Board.

After hearing Puan Ratna's explanation, the SKBT Disciplinary Board decided to suspend Puan
Ratna for two months. Puan Ratna was very dissatisfied with the decision and seeks your legal
advice.

ISSUE:

The issue in this case is whether Puan Ratna can challenged SKBT Disciplinary Board under
the ground of reasonable and fair hearing.

LAW:

The obligation to make reasonable decisions can be made as protection against decisions
made arbitrarily and unfairly. The British courts have argued that natural justice does not
require tribunals to give grounds against their decisions. However, exceptions have already
occurred, therefore it is necessary to impose a duty on the bodies of the adjudicators to give
reasons under the circumstances. When a person's right of appeal is denied without cause given
by the parties concerned, there may have been legitimate expectations that deciding the
authority would provide a reason for its decision, where the reasons that should have been given
when the decision affected an important interest, where reasons should be given when the
decision appears irrational on its face. As we can see in the case of Rohana Ariffin v Universiti
Sains Malaysia, there may be circumstances when reasonable decisions may be appropriate.
For information, a reasonable decision can be an additional constituent of the concept of justice,
and since the plaintiff cannot appeal without knowing the reason for the decision, the court
decides that the reason for the decision must be stated. The reason should be sufficient
otherwise one has no way of knowing whether all the party's submissions or arguments have
been taken into account.

APPLICATION:

Based on the current case, we can see that there are incomplete notices that have been given to
Puan Ratna under the grounds of decision. This is because Puan Ratna found another complaint
against her only after the hearing and Puan Ratna received a notice stating briefly that her case

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)

 lOMoAR cPSD| 11058129

was suspended for two months after the SBT Disciplinary Board heard its explanation. Shee
received no clear, specific, and unclear reasons from the disciplinary body. Therefore, we can
find that the actions taken by the SCS Disciplinary Board are invalid. When Puan Ratna came
to the hearing, she was informed that there was another complaint regarding the unfair
treatment of Encik Hashim. Puan Ratna was deemed not to have a clear opportunity when the
reasons given to her in the notice were vague, non-specific, erratic, and vague.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, Puan Ratna can challenge the SKBT Disciplinary Board under reasonable and
fair hearing grounds.

Downloaded by Alya Diyanah (alyadynh@gmail.com)