The right to be heard in disciplinary proceedings includes access to evidence against the accused, and failure to provide such access constitutes a breach of natural justice.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal filed by the appellant, a junior police officer with the rank of a corporal, against the decision of the High Court refusing a judicial review application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st respondent which dismissed the appellant from its service.

[2] Having heard the appeals, examined the appeal records and considered the submissions by parties, we decided to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. These grounds of judgment contain the full reasons for our decision.

[3] We should state that we are also in full agreement with and adopt the reasonings contained in the grounds of judgment of this Court in the cases of first, Mohamad Adri Ammar Mohamad v. Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Anor [2024] 1 MLRA 667 [Rayuan Sivil No: P-01 (A)-100-02/2022] written by Justice S Nantha Balan, secondly Saiful Norddin v. Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Anor And Another Appeal [2023] MLRAU 249 [Rayuan Sivil: P-01(A)-101-02/2022] written by Justice M Gunalan and thirdly, Khairul Azizi Mat Saad v. Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador & Ors [2023] MLRAU 250; [2023] 6 MLJ 668; [2024] 1 CLJ 1 [Rayuan Sivil No P-01(A)-796-12/2021] written by Justice Mohd Nazlan Ghazali - all of which appeals involved similar issues with only certain variations in factual matrix vis-a-vis the instant appeal, all five of which were heard on the same day by this same panel.

Key Background Facts

[4] On 11 May 2017 information was received concerning certain misconduct ('penyelewengan tugas') involving officers from Battalion 2, Pasukan Gerakan Am (PGA), Kulim in 'Ops Wawasan' at the border of Malaysia - Thailand. The appellant was one of the officers from the said Battalion 2 who had been investigated.

[5] In the exercise of powers delegated by the Police Force Commission through the Instrument of Delegation of Certain Functions, Powers, Duties and Responsibilities PU(B) 441 dated 14 December 2000 ("PU(B) 441/2000") and in accordance with reg 35 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("the 1993 Regulations"), the chairman of the disciplinary authority, the 1st respondent herein, after considering all the information received, on 28 August 2018 determined that the disciplinary offences complained of were of a nature which warranted a punishment of dismissal or reduction in rank under reg 37 of the 1993 Regulations.

[6] Next, the 1st respondent found that there existed a prima facie case against the appellant, and this was stated in a disciplinary letter dated 26 March 2019 addressed to the appellant. The 1st respondent accordingly as stated in the same letter firstly directed that four charges containing the facts of the disciplinary offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant and, it was claimed, as well as the grounds on which it was proposed to dismiss the appellant or reduce his rank be sent to the appellant; and that secondly, required the appellant to make within 21 days from the date of receipt of the charges by the appellant, written representation containi