Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5100
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SATISH MANIAM – Appellant
Versus
SAC SAMAD YAHYA – Respondent
[Civil No:WA-25-71-03/2023]
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
Rules of Court 2012: S.O 53
Headnote
(B) Judicial Review - Standard of review - The court does not substitute its view but ensures the decision is not affected by illegality or irrationality - The applicant's insistence on equating disciplinary proceedings to criminal proceedings is misplaced. (Paras 15-16)
(C) Charges found valid - Defects raised regarding disciplinary charges were addressed; the authenticity of the charges was upheld. (Paras 17-34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct including inappropriate conduct during a phone conversation and failure to follow procedural directives concerning evidence handling. (Paras 5.1-5.5)
Findings of Court:
The Disciplinary Authority acted in accordance with the procedural regulations. The decision made regarding the case was valid and no further examination was required. (Paras 12, 41-42)
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the prescribed regulations, and if the charges were valid and adequately supported. (Paras 8-12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the Disciplinary Authority's decision was made following required procedures under the 1993 Regulations, reinforcing that it is the DA that determines the adequacy of representations made for exculpation. (Paras 28-30)
Result: Application for judicial review dismissed, except for Charge No 5 which was found unsubstantiated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review application filed (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicant's grounds for judicial review (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. disciplinary process compliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 39) |
| 4. judicial review procedure not criminal (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. sufficiency of charge details (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. assessment of exculpatory representation (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 35) |
| 7. misjudgment on fifth charge (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. conclusion of judicial review dismissal (Para 41) |
Introduction
[1] The Applicant filed an application for a Judicial Review Proceeding (encl 13) under O 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC ).
[2] The Applicant is seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Bahawa kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon yang dinamakan di atas menurut A 53 k 3 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk memohon suatu perintah Deklarasi dan/atau Certiorari dan/atau Mandamus dilangsungkan kepada Responden-Responden untuk memindahkan ke dalam Mahkamah Yang Mulia Ini bagi membatalkan keputusan yang telah diberi oleh SAC SAMAD BIN YAHYA, selaku Pengerusi Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Ibupejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur (Responden Pertama) dan Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Ibupejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur (Responden Kedua) bagi pihak Responden Ketiga, Responden Keempat dan Responden Kelima untuk berkuat kuasa mulai 22 December 2022;
b. Kebenaran diberikan kepada Pemohon untuk memohon suatu Perintah bahawa semua prosiding selanjutnya untuk menguatkuasakan atau melaksanakan hukuman tatatertib bertarikh 22 December 2022 yang dibuat dalam kes tindakan tatatertib tersebut digantung sementara menunggu keputusan muktamad permohonan ini;
c. Sekiranya hukuman tatatertib telah dilaksanakan dan/atau dikuatkuasakan, segala pemotongan emolumen dan/atau gaji hendaklah dibayar balik kepada Pemohon dengan serta- merta.
d.Satu perintah untuk mengeluarkan rekod tatatertib terhadap Pemohon daripada sistem pendataan tatatertib Polis DiRaja Malaysia dan juga rekod tersebut hendaklah dibatalkan dan/atau dipadamkan daripada buku perkhidmatan Polis DiRaja Malaysia bagi diri Pemohon.
e. Gantirugi Am dan/atau gantirugi teruk dan/atau gantirugi teladan dan/atau gantirugi punitif dibayar oleh Responden- Responden kepada Pemohon;
[3] In essence, the Applicant filed an application for a judicial review to challenge the decision of the Royal Malaysia Police Disciplinary Authority (the DA) via letter dated 22 December 2022 to seek the following reliefs:
a) An order of declaration and/or certiorari and/or mandamus to quash the Respondent's decision dated 22 December 2022;
b) An order that the Respondents shall pay the Applicant arrears of salary and allowance immediately;
c) An order to remove the Applicant's disciplinary record from the Applicant's service of record; and
d) An order for general damages/ exemplary damages/ punitive damages.
[4] After the hearing, I dismissed the Applicant's application in encl 13. The grounds of my decision appear as below.
Background Facts
[5] The background facts can be summarised as follows:
5.1 Following a complaint made by a complainant (public) against the Applicant, an investigation was initiated by the Department of Integrity and Standard of Compliance TJIPS', Kuala Lumpur regarding the Applicant's misconduct.
5.2 Based on an investigation by JIPS Kuala Lumpur, a report has been submitted to the DA regarding the Applicant's disciplinary offence.
5.3 After examining and considering the disciplinary offenses complained, the DA was of the view that the disciplinary offences committed by the Applicant fall under r 36 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (Amended) 2002 (the 1993 Regulations) for five (5) offences as follows:
5.3.1 "bercakap secara tidak sopan melalui panggilan telefon terhadap penama Mohamed Ashmeer Bin Mohamed Ashrof Raja No K/P: 921001-14-7095 dengan menggunakan nada suara menjerit dan mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat untuk mempertikaikan/memperlekehkan kredibiliti dan tanggungjawab penam
