Wendy Ooi Su Ghee J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1]On 27.05.2025, the Applicant filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Enclosure 1”) under Order 53 Rule 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) against the dismissal dated 21.11.2023 by the Respondents (“the said decision”).

[2]The Applicant also seeks for extension of time to apply for leave in the said Enclosure 1 as there was a delay of more than eighteen (18) months from the date of the said decision.

[3]Enclosure 1 was heard and dismissed by this court where the Respondents were collectively awarded costs of RM5,000-00 subject to allocator fees.

[4]This court now gives the reasons for doing so.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[5]The facts underlying this application which are based on the Applicant’s Affidavit (Enclosure 3) have been briefly simplified by the Respondents in their submission and are reproduced below.

(i)The Applicant began his public service career in 2008 when he was appointed as a Pembantu Antidadah Gred S19 with the Agensi Antidadah Kebangsaan (“AADK”), Pulau Pinang. He served there for approximately two (2) years and was confirmed in service in 2010. Following his confirmation, he was transferred to the AADK Kedah, Baling Branch, upon his own request.

(ii)The Applicant was subsequently appointed as a Pembantu Penguatkuasa Gred KP19 with the Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Malaysia (“JPJ”), where he served until 15.09.2016. On 16.09.2016, he reported for training at the JPJ Academy in Tiang Dua, Melaka.

(iii)The Applicant experienced his first conflict in service in December 2016 when his spouse gave birth while he was still in training. He took seven (7) days of Cuti Isteri Bersalin but was later informed he was only entitled to three (3), which allegedly led to the postponement of his reporting date to JPJ Sungai Petani from 01.01.2017 to 01.03.2017. He further claims that in 2018, his salary was paid via voucher due to alleged excess leave and that the September 2018 salary was delayed until 29.10.2018.

(iv)By letter dated 07.04.2022, the Second Respondent issued a surat tindakan tatatertib to the Applicant proposing disciplinary action with a view to dismissal or demotion under Regulation 37, Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 [P.U.(A) 395/1993]. The Applicant was charged with—

(a)being absent from duty without leave or reasonable excuse for 100 days between April and July 2020; and

(b)failing to be present at his workplace for six (6) days in July 2020.

(v)The Applicant submitted his written representation dated 23.04.2022, wherein he sought to explain his absences by referring to administrative and financial issues, including alleged late salary payments and difficulties arising from his family circumstances.

(vi)Before the conclusion of that process, the Applicant was served with another surat tindakan tatatertib dated 22.06.2022, in which he was charged with being absent from duty without leave for 109 days between August and December 2019.

(vii)On 01.07.2022, the Applicant submitted a second representation, questioning the validity of the second surat tindakan tatatertib and highlighted what he described as discrepancies in the list of dates — including several dates which, according to him, were public holidays that had been counted as absences.

(viii)On 07.07.2022, the Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No. 1) JPJ Malaysia decided on the first set of charges and imposed an official warning under Regulation 38(a) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.

(ix)Subsequently, by letter dated 10.07.2023, the Applicant was informed that the same board, after considering the second set of charges, had decided to dismiss him from the public service, effective 07.07.2023, pursuant to Regulation 38(g) of the same Regulations.

(x)The Applicant appealed to the Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia. On 04.12.2023, he received a letter dated 30.11.2023, enclosing the app