The court upheld the dismissal of a police officer, affirming that due process and natural justice were followed in the disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon JC:

Introduction

[1] This is a judicial review application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 3rd respondent ("R3") dated 25 October 2019. By the said decision, R3 had dismissed the Applicant from service. The Applicant seeks a declaration: (a) that his dismissal is unlawful; (b) that he is still serving as a Lans Corporal; and (c) that he is entitled to his salary and other benefits. I dismissed the judicial review application. Here are my grounds.

Background Facts

[2] The Applicant was a junior police officer with the rank of Lans Corporal. He was dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Royal Malaysia Police ("PDRM") under reg 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("1993 Regulation") on 23 October 2019.

[3] An information relating to malpractice ('penyelewengan tugas') involving officers from Batalion 2, Pasukan Gerakan Am (PGA), Kulim in 'Ops Wawasan' at the border of Malaysia / Thailand was received on 11 May 2017. The Applicant was one of the officers from the said Batalion 2, PGA, Kulim who were investigated.

[4] R3, being the Disciplinary Authority of the PDRM, received a report stating that the Applicant was in breach of discipline that warranted disciplinary action to be taken against him.

[5] On 28 August 2018, in the exercise of powers delegated by R3 through Instrument of Delegation of Certain Functions, Powers, Duties and Responsibilities P U (B) 441 dated 14 December 2000 and in accordance with reg 35 of the 1993 Regulation, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the information received, determined that the disciplinary offences complained of were of a nature which warrants a punishment of dismissal or reduction in rank under reg 37 of the 1993 Regulation.

[6] On 26 March 2019, after considering all the available information, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Authority found that there existed a prima facie case against the Applicant. The Chairman:

(a) directed that charges dated 26 March 2019 containing the facts of the disciplinary offences alleged to have been committed by the Applicant and the grounds on which it was proposed to dismiss him or reduce his rank be sent to the Applicant. The said charges are exhibited in Exhibit "K-1" of the Applicant's affidavit in support affirmed on 10 January 2020 which was filed in these proceedings; and

(b) required the Applicant to make within 21 days a written representation containing the grounds upon which he relied to exculpate himself.

[7] The Applicant then made a representation vide his letter dated 27 May 2019. The said letter is exhibited in Exhibit "K-2" of the Applicant's affidavit in support.

[8] The Disciplinary Authority conducted a meeting on 23 October 2019 and considered the Applicant's representation. The Disciplinary Authority was satisfied that the Applicant did not exculpate himself from the disciplinary charges. The Disciplinary Authority decided that:

(a) The Applicant was found guilty of the 1st charge and imposed with punishment of dismissal pursuant to reg 38(g) of the 1993 Regulation; and

(b) The Applicant was found guilty of the 2nd charge and imposed with punishment of warning pursuant to reg 38(a) of the 1993 Regulation.

[9] The Disciplinary Authority decided that those punishments against the Applicant would be effective on 23 October 2019. The Disciplinary Authority's letter dated 25 October 2019 conveying the decision is exhibited in Exhibit "K-3" of the Applicant's affidavit in support.

[10] In the Statement filed pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of 2012, the Applicant canvassed the following grounds:

(a) Responden-Responden telah melanggari keadilan asasi menurut Fasal [2] perkara 135 Perlembagaan Persekutuan apabila tidak memberi Pemohon satu peluang pendengaran lisan mahupun bertulis dimana keputusan itu dijadikan tidak sah oleh kemungkinan keadilan asasi kerana Pemohon tidak diberikan kesempatan untuk menerangkan, membetulkan atau menyangkal pe