Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TAY CHAI HUAT – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion based on lack of request for inquiry. (Para 1) |
| 2. right to be heard under article 135(2) (Para 2 , 3 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. finality and authority of the disciplinary authority (Para 4 , 38 , 42) |
| 4. background facts of disciplinary charges against the police officer. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. application of natural justice in disciplinary actions (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 22 , 32) |
| 6. court's analysis on the necessity of an oral hearing. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. nature of judicial review over administrative decisions (Para 21 , 23 , 30 , 33) |
| 8. procedural fairness and discretion of the disciplinary authority (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29) |
| 9. judicial precedent and stare decisis in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 34 , 36) |
[1] I have had the advantage of reading the Judgment of my learned brother Mohd Ghazali bin Mohd Yusoff (FCJ), I agree that the appeal should be allowed on the premise that there was no request from the respondent for the appointment of Committee of Inquiry under o 26(5) of the General Orders 1980 . As such, the disciplinary board should not be faulted for failing to do so. I would, therefore, allow this appeal on that narrow ground.
[2] I should also add that the fac
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
