The law robbed my livelihood, says dismissed Telekom worker
M Ganasan who now earns a living as a taxi driver said that his dismissal was wrong and his appeals to the courts of law, which were all dismissed, were also tainted by procedural defects.
"From the High Court to the Federal Court, the law had been wrongly applied denying me of my right to work," said Ganasan.
"The Attorney General's Chambers, the Public Services Commission (PSC) and the judiciary have taken efforts to deprive me of every right that I am entitled to under the Federal Constitution as a government servant," he added.
In July 1986, Ganasan was subjected to a disciplinary action by the PSC for allegedly making two overseas call while serving as a Telekom technician. He was also alleged to have transferred the cost of the calls, RM56.25, to an unknown subscriber.
However, Ganasan claimed that his dismissal was wrong as the secretary to the commission had acted beyond his powers.
According to him, the secretary had issued him a show cause letter after having decided to dismiss him. Ganasan said he denied the charges and sought a time extension to explain the charges.
"However the commission took my denial as a show cause explanation and dismissed me with immediate effect. This is a case where there was no enquiry and I was given no opportunity to answer the charges," he said.
Ganasan argued that the commission's decision to dismiss him contravened constitutional guarantees and General Order Provisions which ensured that civil servants should not be dismissed without being given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Seven judges
He added that other aspects of the constitution and general orders were also side stepped in this matter.
For example, he said, the disciplinary proceeding was carried out by the secretary of the PSC, whom by law should not be sitting in the proceeding.
Ganasan added that in 1988 when he appealed against the commission's decision to the High Court, the matter was only heard in 1995.
He said that the case was heard and an oral judgment was delivered in July 1995, dismissing his appeal. A written judgment was delivered 277 days later, in April, 1996.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal took an even longer time to deliver a judgment, he added.
"The Court of Appeal heard the matter for less than two hours in September 1996. The judgement was delivered 744 days later, in September 1998."
While his leave to appeal to the Federal Court was denied in February 1999.
"My appeal went before seven judges (from the High Court to the Federal Court) and they all failed to look at the various flaws in the proceedings."
"As my claims were based on the contravention of various provisions of the Federal Constitution, the general orders and the rule of natural justice, it was the profound duties of the judges to have taken into account these complaints. However they all failed to do this," lamented Ganasan.
The Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted the provision of the constitution, causing the appeal to fail and the court's interpretation was against the commonly accepted one, he added.
Appeal letters
After his failure to get the dismissal overturned, Ganasan started writing to various persons and agencies seeking their intervention and assistance.
He has sent letters to the former chief justice Eusoff Chin, all the other judges involved in his case, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Minister in the Prime Minister's department Dr Rais Yatim and the chief secretary of the government.
Ganasan also wrote to the Human Rights Commission, the Bar Council and the Public Complaints Bureau.
Most of his letters were not replied but those who replied, including Eusoff, told him that nothing could be done in this case as the decisions of the courts were final.
"If that is the case, where do I go now? I don't want to suffer for a mistake in law which was made by the commission and continued by the courts," said Ganasan.
