Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2096
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SAIFUL NORDDIN – Appellant
Versus
SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: P-01(A)-101-02/2022 & P-01(A)-119-03/2022]
The failure to provide vital documents in disciplinary proceedings constitutes a breach of natural justice, impairing the right to a fair defense.
Headnote:(A) Peraturan-peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 - Judicial Review Applications - Disciplinary action against police officers - Dismissal upheld by High Court - Procedure followed complied with regulations - Denial of natural justice due to non-supply of vital documents - Applicants not given fair opportunity to defend charges - Decision set aside. (Paras 10, 12, 17, 22)
(B) Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Requirement to furnish relevant documents for effective defense - Breach of procedural fairness when vital documents were not supplied - Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 17, 22)
Facts of the case:
The Applicants were Lance Corporals dismissed from the Royal Malaysian Police after being found guilty of charges under the 1993 Regulations. They claimed the disciplinary process was flawed due to non-supply of documents needed for defense. Decision Of The High Court: The High Court dismissed the JRAs, finding no breach of procedure or natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Applicants were denied access to crucial documents, compromising their ability to defend against the charges.
Issues: The main issues included whether the disciplinary authority complied with natural justice principles and the adequacy of the disciplinary procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to provide vital documents constituted a breach of natural justice, undermining the fairness of the disciplinary process.
Result: Appeals allowed, decision of the High Court set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and material facts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. findings on disciplinary procedure compliance. (Para 3) |
Introduction
[1] There are 5 related appeals arising from the same set of facts where the Appellants ('A.1'-'A.5') have appealed against the respective decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner (as he then was 'LJC') of the High Court in Penang who dismissed their Judicial Review Applications ('JRAs') wherein they each sought an order of certiorari to quash the impugned decision of the 1st Respondent ('RT') to find them guilty of the charges preferred and to order their dismissal and ancillary orders. This judgment would be for Appeal 11 and 119. At the outset I would place on record that, I would adopt with approval the reasoning and grounds of judgment of my Learned Brothers, Nantha Balan, JCA and Mohd Nazlan, JCA who have ably written at length on the law and facts. We must also state our decisions for the respective appeals are unanimous.
Material Facts
[2] Briefly, the material facts are as follows:
1. The 2 Applicants/Appellants were Lance Corporals with the Royal Malaysian Police until their dismissal from service. They were charged with various disciplinary actions pursuant to Peraturan-peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 ('the 1993 Regulations') with the possibility of being dismissed or downgraded in rank.
2. They were tasked for Ops Wawasan at the border of Malaysia/Thailand sometime in 2017. They alleged that on or about 26 March 2019, they received a letter from Jabatan Integriti dan Pematuhan Standard of the PDRM informing them of the disciplinary actions against them respectively.
3. In the said letters, it was stated that upon examining the relevant information, a prima facie case existed on the respective charges. The said letters also informed that they were required to provide their written representation within 21 days providing grounds that they wish to rely on to exculpate themselves.
4. In response, the applicants duly sent their written representations. There after, through a letter dated 25 October 2019, the applicants were informed that they were found guilty of the respective charges that resulted in their dismissal from service with effect from 23 October 2019.
Decision Of The High Court
[3] Briefly the LJC's findings on the issues that he correctly identified as the core issues for determination, conveniently expressed under separate headings, are these:
1. The Disciplinary Procedure
The JC viewed that the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) complied with the 1993 Regulations. The Applicants were inter alia issued with the show cause letter. They were invited to make written representations, which they did.
It was only after the DA found that the written representations did not exculpate the Applicants did the DA then decide to dismiss them.
2. Failure To Furnish Documents
Having perused the Applicants' written representations, it is clear that no such request were made. In fact, in the JC's view, the Applicants were able to give a full explanation on all charges.
The allegations of having made oral requests for documents etc. were only made for the first time in this application and no request were made at the material time. If really documents were required, one would expect that the same be requested for in the letter of representation.
3. Failure To Conduct An Oral Hearing
There was no breach of natural justice under Art 135(2) of the Federal Constitution . The Disciplinary Authority (DA) did observe the rules of natural justice and had given the Applicants an opportunity to be heard.
They were informed of the charges against them and given ample opportunity to deny or explain the alleged misconduct. The Applicants had thereafter given a detailed written representation to the DA.
DA had considered the Applicants' representation and was satisfied that the Applicants did not exculpate themselves from the charges. It is the DA and
