Yahoo Malaysia Web Search

Search results

  1. For dismissal to arise, the decision to terminate the employment must be connected with conduct of the servant in relation to his office which is regarded by the Government as unsatisfactory or blameworthy and the consequences of the termination must involve an element of punishment. Page 4 of 6 MAHAN SINGH v GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

  2. GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA v MAHAN SINGH. government service. Therefore I would rule, respectfully disagreeing with the learned trial judge, that the plaintiff, though removed from office, had not been dismissed. I now turn to other arguments advanced before us on the plaintiff's behalf.

  3. and cited by Lee Hun Hoe C.J. (Borneo) in Government of Malaysia v. Mahan Singh [1975] 2 M.L.J. 155 at p. 165, where the following significant extract from Chitty (p. 68) appears: "The King is the first person in the nation — being superior to both Houses in dignity and the only branch of the Legislature that

  4. Government of Malaysia v , Mahan Singh (1975) 2 MLJ 155. - 1 - INTRODUCTIOIi GENERAL SURVEY OFTH~SUBJECT. Arising from the discussion in 1956 for an independent Federation of Malaya, the Reid Constitutional Commission was appointed to recornmed constitutional arrangement for the proposed Federation.

  5. Aug 23, 2010 · GOVERMENT OF MALAYSIA V MAHAN SINGH. Constitutional law- Termination of Service- Federal Constitution Arts 132 & 135.

  6. WHO IS A PUBLIC SERVANT? Article 132(1) defines public services to include the armed forces, the judicial and legal service, the general public service of the Federation, the police force, the joint federal-state public service, the public service of each state and the education service.

  7. The climax of Siva’s early career at the Bar was surely his appeal to the Privy Council in Mahan Singh v Government of Malaysia [see (1978) 2 MLJ 133]. He was not daunted by the powerful judgements of Suffian L.P., Lee Hun Hoe C.J. (Borneo) and Ong Hock Sim F.J., who unanimously had held against him in the Federal Court [see (1975) 2 MLJ 155].