Public servants cannot challenge the proportionality of disciplinary action; courts only ensure legality and adherence to procedures—not to substitute their judgment for that of the employer.

Darryl Goon Siew Chye JCA:

[1] This case concerned a challenge by the appellant to the decision of the Public Services Commission in ordering his dismissal as a Deputy Director of Customs after having found him guilty of three disciplinary charges preferred against him.

The Background Facts

[2] The appellant was at all material times a civil servant holding the position of a Deputy Director of Customs, Grade WK44 (acting) in the Royal Malaysian Customs Department. At the time of his actual dismissal, the appellant was serving in the Technical Services Division of the Royal Malaysian Customs Department in Putrajaya.

[3] A complaint with several allegations were lodged against the appellant with the Chairman of the Lembaga Tatatertib Bagi Kumpulan Pengurusan (No 2) Jabatan Kastam Diraja, Malaysia. The appellant was then serving in the Cawangan Pematuhan, Stesen Bentong, of the Royal Malaysian Customs Department in the state of Pahang.

[4] On 29 Jun 2015, the Chairman of the Lembaga Tatatertib Bagi Kumpulan Pengurusan (No 2) Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia, after having considered the complaint, had determined that the subject matter of the complaint was of such a nature that warrants a dismissal or reduction in rank in accordance with reg 37(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, made pursuant to art 132 of the Federal Constitution.

[5] The matter was then referred to the Public Services Commission of Malaysia. The Chairman of the Public Services Commission decided that there was a prima facie case made out against the appellant in accordance with reg 37(2) and his decision was set out in writing dated 28 April 2017.

[6] The appellant was then issued with what may be described as a show cause letter dated 4 May 2017, with the three charges set out therein against the appellant:

(i) for being absent from duty without leave or without prior permission or without reasonable cause for a total of 84 days (63 days in 2014 and 21 days in 2015) contrary to reg 24 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ('1st Charge');

["Bahawa tuan, Sam Maark a/l Verak (KP:771021-09-7279), Penguasa Kastam Gred WK44 (Memangku) semasa bertugas di Cawangan Pematuhan, Stesen Bentong, Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia, Pahang telah melakukan kesalahan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti atau tanpa terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran atau tanpa sebab munasabah selama 84 hari pada tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut: ..."]

(ii) for failing to register his movements in or out of the office or punching his Punch Card on 29 occasions ie 8 in, 21 out, contrary to Surat Pekeliling Am Bil.11 Tahun 1981 and Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bil.2 Tahun 2007 ('2nd Charge');

["Bahawa tuan, Sam Maark a/l Verak (KP: 771021-09-7279), Penguasa Kastam Gred WK44 (Memangku) semasa bertugas di Cawangan Pematuhan, Stesen Bentong, Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia, Pahang telah melakukan kesalahan tidak mendaftar kedatangan atau kepulangan atau mengetik Kad Perakam Waktu sebanyak 29 kali iaitu 8 kali ketika masuk dan 21 kali ketika keluar seperti berikut: ..."]

and

(iii) for coming in late for duty to the office without leave or without reasonable cause for 25 times and leaving early once, contrary to Perintah Am 5, Perintah-Perintah Am Bab G ('3rd Charge').

["Bahawa tuan, Sam Maark a/l Verak (KP: 771021-09-7279), Penguasa Kastam Gred WK44 (Memangku) semasa bertugas di Cawangan Pematuhan, Stesen Bentong, Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia, Pahang telah melakukan kesalahan lewat hadir bertugas ke pejabat tanpa kebenaran atau sebab yang munasabah sebanyak 25 kali dan balik awal sebanyak satu (1) kali pada tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut: ..."]

Particulars of the relevant months, dates and time relating to the charges were provided in a table below the charges including the relevant provisions in the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, relied upon.

[7] The appellant was provided an opportunity to be heard according to the procedure provided under