SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 638

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SATISH MANIAM – Appellant
Versus
SAC SAMAD YAHYA – Respondent
[Civil No:WA-25-71-03/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Muhamad Saifullah Muhamad Azmi,Jayamurugan Vadivelu ,Respondent Advocate: Nur Irmawatie Daud

Judicial review does not involve weighing evidence; the court respects the findings of the Disciplinary Authority unless there is a clear error of law or procedural impropriety.

Headnote:(A) Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 - Regulation 36 - Judicial Review - Applicant sought to quash disciplinary decision by the Disciplinary Authority - Court upheld decision, finding that procedures were followed and charges substantiated - The Applicant's claims of procedural impropriety and defective charges were dismissed - The only exception noted was for the fifth charge where the Applicant was found not guilty. (Paras 8, 12, 41)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of review - The court does not weigh evidence or substitute its opinion for that of the Disciplinary Authority - The authority's findings are upheld unless shown to be flawed by illegality or irrationality. (Paras 15, 41)

(C) Procedural Compliance - The Disciplinary Authority followed the necessary procedures under the 1993 Regulations, allowing the Applicant to make representations and find a prima facie case against him. (Paras 8, 41)

(D)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were valid, and the decision was in accordance with the law, except for the fifth charge where the Applicant was exonerated. (Paras 12, 41) (E)

Issues: The main issues included whether the charges were properly substantiated, whether the Applicant's representation was considered adequately, and the validity of the disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 8, 12, 41) (F)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it is not the role of the court to reassess evidence in judicial review; the Disciplinary Authority's decision must be respected unless it is shown to be fundamentally flawed. (Paras 15, 41) (G)

Result: Application for judicial review dismissed except for Charge No 5.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed an application for a Judicial Review Proceeding (encl 13) under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC).

[2] The Applicant is seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Bahawa kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon yang dinamakan di atas menurut A 53 k 3 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk memohon suatu perintah Deklarasi dan/atau Certiorari dan/atau Mandamus dilangsungkan kepada Responden-Responden untuk memindahkan ke dalam Mahkamah Yang Mulia Ini bagi membatalkan keputusan yang telah diberi oleh SAC SAMAD BIN YAHYA, selaku Pengerusi Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Ibupejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur (Responden Pertama) dan Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Ibupejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur (Responden Kedua) bagi pihak Responden Ketiga, Responden Keempat dan Responden Kelima untuk berkuat kuasa mulai 22 December 2022;

b. Kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon untuk memohon suatu Perintah bahawa semua prosiding selanjutnya untuk menguatkuasakan atau melaksanakan hukuman tatatertib bertarikh 22 December 2022 yang dibuat dalam kes tindakan tatatertib tersebut digantung sementara menunggu keputusan muktamad permohonan ini;

c. Sekiranya hukuman tatatertib telah dilaksanakan dan/atau dikuatkuasakan, segala pemotongan emolumen dan/atau gaji hendaklah dibayar balik kepada Pemohon dengan serta- merta.

d.Satu perintah untuk mengeluarkan rekod tatatertib terhadap Pemohon daripada sistem pendataan tatatertib Polis DiRaja Malaysia dan juga rekod tersebut hendaklah dibatalkan dan/atau dipadamkan daripada buku perkhidmatan Polis DiRaja Malaysia bagi diri Pemohon.

e. Gantirugi Am dan/atau gantirugi teruk dan/atau gantirugi teladan dan/atau gantirugi punitif dibayar oleh Responden- Responden kepada Pemohon;

[3] In essence, the Applicant filed an application for a judicial review to challenge the decision of the Royal Malaysia Police Disciplinary Authority (the DA) via letter dated 22 December 2022 to seek the following reliefs:

a) An order of declaration and/or certiorari and/or mandamus to quash the Respondent's decision dated 22 December 2022;

b) An order that the Respondents shall pay the Applicant arrears of salary and allowance immediately;

c) An order to remove the Applicant's disciplinary record from the Applicant's service of record; and

d) An order for general damages/ exemplary damages/ punitive damages.

[4] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application in encl 13. The grounds of my decision appear as below.

Background Facts

[5] The background facts can be summarised as follows:

5.1 Following a complaint made by a complainant (public) against the Applicant, an investigation was initiated by the Department of Integrity and Standard of Compliance TJIPS', Kuala Lumpur regarding the Applicant's misconduct.

5.2 Based on an investigation by JIPS Kuala Lumpur, a report has been submitted to the DA regarding the Applicant's disciplinary offence.

5.3 After examining and considering the disciplinary offenses complained, the DA was of the view that the disciplinary offences committed by the Applicant fall under r 36 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (Amended) 2002 (the 1993 Regulations) for five (5) offences as follows:

5.3.1 "bercakap secara tidak sopan melalui panggilan telefon terhadap penama Mohamed Ashmeer Bin Mohamed Ashrof Raja No K/P: 921001-14-7095 dengan menggunakan nada suara menjerit dan mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat untuk mempertikaikan/memperlekehkan kredibiliti dan tanggungjawab penama sebagai peguam yang mana telah melanggar arahan PTKPN A110 perenggan 33.1.33;

5.3.2 tidak melakukan proses serah terima barang kes secara rasmi dengan mengisi borang serah- menyerah dengan Kpl/D RF/143476 Mohamad Hanapi Bin Pariman, Kpl/D (TBK2) Siasatan Khas (2) Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Cheras Kuala Lumpur iaitu pegawai tangkapan bersabit Jelutong Repot: 006683/20 berkait dengan siasatan kes Bukit Jalil Repot: 005925/20 No. Kertas Siasatan Jenayah C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top