The Disciplinary Authority's decision followed proper procedures under the 1993 Regulations, and the court does not evaluate evidence but ensures no legal errors affect the decision.

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 pen