The absence of reasons for rejecting an application for retirement constitutes procedural impropriety, impacting fairness and legality.

Introduction

[1] The appellant is an Associate Professor of the Language Academy set up under the respondent, one of the public universities in the country. The appellant decided to retire early. He applied to the respondent for the necessary permission. His application was rejected. So, were his appeals. The appellant then applied to judicially review the respondent's decisions by seeking:

i. declaratory orders to the effect that the appellant is entitled and has fulfilled the requirements to optionally retire from the service of the respondent; and that the respondent's rejection of the appellant's application and appeals are invalid and wrong in law and/or are mala fides;

ii. an order of certiorari to quash the respondent's decisions;

iii. an order of mandamus directing the respondent to approve the appellant's application for early optional retirement.

[2] The application was dismissed by the High Court. On appeal, we reserved our decision after hearing submissions from both counsel with a direction that both parties were to hand in further written submissions on the order of mandamus, as we noticed that there were no submissions on this, be it at the High Court or before us. Both parties have since filed further written submissions on this specific issue. We have taken those submissions together with the written and oral submissions already made into regard in coming to our decision.

Background

[3] In the statement filed in support of the application for judicial review under O 53 of the Rules of 2012, the appellant claims that the rejection by the respondent is tainted with illegality and irrationality. The appellant cites a civil action that he had taken against the respondent in 2014 as the basis for the respondent's rejection and other actions taken against him. According to the appellant, it all goes back to a defamation action initiated by one Rogayah Mohamed, a fellow employee, in 2003 [Johor Bahru Sessions Court Civil Suit No: 53-699-2003]. Since the defamation action was brought against the appellant in his capacity as employee of the respondent, he had legal representation arranged by the respondent. However, he lost in that defamation action and was ordered to pay RM250,000.00 as damages to the plaintiff there. Rogayah initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the appellant which led to the appellant ultimately settling the judgment sum.

[4] The appellant claimed that the conduct of the defamation action was "highly questionable and that the respondent was negligent in conducting it", reaching this conclusion based on the following:

i. the respondent and its lawyers had failed to obtain mandate and/ or instructions of the appellant in respect of the defence and counterclaim;

ii. the respondent and its lawyers had failed to instruct its lawyers to prepare and file the necessary cause papers for the appeal within time;

iii. the respondent had failed to instruct its lawyers and had failed to attend Court when the appeal was fixed for Show Cause which resulted in the appeal being struck out.

[5] The appellant then sued the respondent claiming that the respondent was in breach of contract and was negligent in failing to act in the appellant's best interest and presenting the best possible case ("Civil Suit").