The first law journal entitled Teacher Dismissal was about a

disciplinary action for participating in general elections whether it

was mala fide, or in other word, deliberately or not. The case took
place in February 1961 when the plaintiff was employed as a
teacher

at

the

High

School

Klang.

He

was

the

candidate

representing DAP in an election. He informed the Permanent

Secretary of the Ministry of Education. Nonetheless, he was asked to
resign. He refused and eventually won the election serving as a
State Assemblyman at the same time continue to teach at the
school. There was no disciplinary action taken against him.
Then, the plaintiff had to make a choice whether to become a
government servant or remain under USTR (Unified Teaching
Services Rules) as non-government servant. He chose the latter. He
was an employee of the second defendant too. In 1974 and 1978, he
contested for elections while he was a teacher. After the election,
the second defendant requested him to resign but he refused. He
accepted the offer to be under pensionable scheme, revised salary
scale, which was the second of the three options offered by the
second defendant. In 1979, he competed in a by-election again. In
1980, the plaintiff was dismissed by the second defendant through
the approval of the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he was
wrongly dismissed and therefore should be given compensation
such as the remain of his salary and damages caused as well as to
be hired again as a teacher.
The plaintiff defended himself by justifying 3 reasons. Firstly,
he was a non-government servant and didnt break the definition of
gaining profit. Secondly, the request to tender his resignation should
come from the Board of Governors of the school. Thirdly, the
precedent had become the Mayor or Penang yet still hold the office
of Headmaster of the school. The plaintiff did apply for no pay leave
in order to take part in the political campaign for the election and
the request was granted. In 1974, he stood for election for Shah
Alam Parlimentary seat and Bukit Raja State Assembly seat. In 1978,

he stood for election for the State seat of Bukit Raja and the Port
Klang Parliamentary seat. Both the defendants gave identical
justifications. First, since the plaintiff had accepted a new salary
scheme, he had agreed to be governed by the General Orders.
Second, the plaintiff had been guilty of misdemeanour by disobeying
the orders of the second defendant and disowned the contract of
service when he competed for the by-election in 1979. Third, he
didnt plead for estoppel in the circumstances of the case. It was
beyond the legal power (ultra vires) for the first defendant to make
the 1977 Regulations. From April 1972 till his dismissal in 1980, the
plaintiff

was

an

employee

of

the

second

defendant.

1977

Regulations govern the conduct and discipline of its employees. The

plaintiff testified that when he campaigned for the 1979 by-election,
he had raised 2 sensitive issues. First, the setting up of Merdeka
University. Second, the first defendants action in substituting Malay
medium schools for English schools. He alleged that the first
defendant had induced the second defendant to dismiss him. He
had learnt of this from two reliable persons whose identifies he was
not prepared to disclose as he had given them his solemn promise
not to divulge their names so as to protect their positions and as a
result, he was not calling them to testify on behalf of him although
they are alive and able to do so. He claimed to be victimized since
the dismissal was mala fide (malicious and deliberately). Since the
plaintiff had been warned and yet he repeatedly continued to be
politically active. At last, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and
therefore the case was dismissed with costs.
In the second law journal, it was about an appellant who was
an Assistant Lecturer in UTM applied for leave for the purpose of
taking part in the General Election and was granted. However, he
found it insufficient and asked for an extension yet his request was
refused. He continued to take the leave. He then received a letter
from the University Council to terminate his employment. He filed a
specially indorsed writ (legal document) for a declaration that the

dismissal by the respondents was ultra vires (beyond legal power),

illegal and void. He appealed to the Federal Court after his
application was dismissed by the High Court. According to him, he
never received the letter refusing his leave. It was after 8 months
that he received a letter from University Council to terminate his
employment from 1979. At last, the appeal was allowed. This is due
to the reason that the university authority didnt follow proper
procedure as prescribed by law before condemning the staff who did
wrong. University Council and Disciplinary Committee are two
different bodies that provide distinct functions. The appellant is
entitled to the protection of hearing before the appropriate
disciplinary authority. Since that right is violated, the court hence
allow the appellant to retain his employment.