Procedural compliance with military guidelines is mandatory, and failure to adhere voids disciplinary actions.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant filed an application for judicial review (encl 7) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) to quash the Respondents' decisions relating to the summary trial, review of the summary findings and the Applicant's discharge from service.

[2] Essentially, the Applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review against the Respondents to seek the following reliefs:

2.1 Suatu perintah deklarasi untuk mengenepikan dan membatalkan keputusan yang diberikan oleh Responden Kedua bertarikh 25 September 2020 yang mendapati Pemohon bersalah bagi kesalahan tidak mematuhi perintah tetap pasukan yang bertentangan dengan s 51 Akta Angkatan Tentera 1972 (Akta 77) dan seterusnya dijatuhkan hukuman denda 14 hari gaji dan setelah itu diberhentikan perkhidmatan dari perkhidmatan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia;

2.2 Satu perintah deklarasi untuk mengenepikan dan membatalkan keputusan ulangkaji Responden Pertama bertarikh 8 March 2021 yang mengekalkan keputusan Responden Kedua di dalam Perenggan 2.1;

2.3 Suatu perintah deklarasi bahawa pemberhentian daripada perkhidmatan yang dibuat ke atas Pemohon berkuat kuasa pada 25 September 2020 adalah batal, tidak sah dan tiada efek di sisi undang-undang;

2.4 Suatu perintah Mandamus mengembalikan semula Pemohon ke jawatan Angkatan Tentera Malaysia dengan pangkat asalnya sebelum pada pemberhentian daripada perkhidmatan yang dikenakan oleh Responden-Responden;

2.5 Suatu perintah bahawa Pemohon layak menerima semula semua pembayaran gaji, elaun, emolumen, pampasan pencen, pencen bulanan dan segala bayaran yang beliau layak terima mengikut skim perkhidmatannya serta peluang kenaikan pangkat dan kekananan dalam perkhidmatan tersebut;

2.6 Ganti rugi am;

2.7 Ganti rugi teladan;

2.8 Kos yang ditaksir oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini; dan

2.9 Apa-apa relif yang dianggap suaimanfaat dan wajar oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.

[3] After the hearing, I allowed the Applicant's judicial review application (Enclosure 7). I will now set out the grounds for my decision.

Background Facts

[4] The background facts of this case are adopted with and/or without modification from the Statement, Affidavit in Support and the written submission of the parties.

[5] The Applicant was an officer of the Malaysian Army ranked as a sergeant before he was terminated and his final unit was 91 Supply Depot of the Royal Service Corps Centre.

[6] The 1st Respondent is a Malaysian military body established under art 137 (1) of the Federal Constitution (FC) and is the constitutional body responsible (under the general authority of the King as Supreme Commander) for the command, discipline and administration of Malaysia's armed forces.

[7] The 2nd Respondent is a Commanding Officer in command of a military unit of 91 Supply Depot of the Royal Service Corps Centre.

[8] The Applicant served in the 1st Respondent's organization for almost fifteen (15) years of services starting from 24 June 2005 untill 25 September 2020 and his service should be ended on 23 June 2023.

[9] On 15 May 2020, the Applicant underwent a Urine Drug Screening Test which was imposed on all members of Pasukan 91 Depot Bekalan Pusat Kor Pekhidmatan Diraja (Pasukan 91 DBP KPD). The results of the Applicant's urine test were found to contain drugs of Methamphetamine, Amphetamine and Ketamine.

[10] On 18 May 2020, the Applicant's urine specimen was sent to the Department of Chemistry Malaysia (DCM) for analysis and examination. The results of the DCM's analysis confirmed that the Applicant's urine contained Amphetamine and Methamphetamine.

[11] On 21 September