JUDGMENT

Su Tiang Joo JC:

Introduction

[1] The applicant served in the Malaysian Immigration Department. He was found guilty of having approved an application for a Malaysian International Passport by an applicant who used a forged national identity card. He was dismissed. He commenced judicial review proceedings to quash this decision and to be reinstated. His application was dismissed and these are the grounds of judgment.

Background

[2] At the time of his dismissal, the applicant having served in the Malaysian Immigration Department ("MIM") for about 23 years, was 43 years' old.

[3] Disciplinary proceedings which led to his dismissal commenced with a show cause letter to him dated 3 April 2018 (encl 5 exh P3) from the Chairman of the Disciplinary Board ("R1") informing the applicant that a report had been received which warranted disciplinary action with the view to having him dismissed or demoted.

[4] In the show cause letter of 3 April 2018 received by the applicant on 16 April 2018 (encl 5 exh P3 pp 49 to 52), it was alleged that whilst on duty at Pejabat UTC, Perak, Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Negeri Perak on 22 March 2016 the applicant had approved an application by one Harlizah Binti Jaman for a Malaysian International Passport. As it turned out, this applicant had relied upon a MyKad No 891208-14-5058 which was later confirmed to be non-existent, that is, it was not issued by the National Registration Department.

[5] The applicant was also informed that such act of dereliction could be deemed to be a misconduct in breach of reg 4(2)(e) and 4(2)(i) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("1993 Regulations") and punishable under reg 38(f) and (g). These Regulations are set out here:

"4(2) An officer shall not:

(e) lack efficiency or industry;

(i) be insubordinate or conduct himself in any manner which can be reasonably construed as being insubordinate.

38. If an officer is found guilty of a disciplinary offence, any one or any combination of two or more of the following punishments, depending upon the seriousness of the offence, may be imposed on the officer:

(f) reduction in rank; or

(g) dismissal."

[6] The applicant was then asked to make his representations under reg 37(2) (b) of the 1993 Regulations reproduced hereunder within 21 days from his receipt of the show cause letter:

"(2) If it appears to the Chairman of the appropriate Disciplinary Authority that there exists a prima facie case against the officer, the Chairman of the appropriate Disciplinary Authority shall:

(b) require the officer to make, within a period of twenty-one days from the date he is informed by notice in accordance with reg 52 of the charge, a written representation containing the grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself."

[7] The applicant alleged by letter dated 19 April 2018 to R1 (encl 5 exh P4), he had requested to be supplied with all documents in connection with the charge levelled against him. In this letter, he also asked for a copy of the Close Circuit Television ("CCTV") recording of the day of the alleged incident to enable him to reply in detail. The applicant also sought for an oral hearing to enable him to question witnesses who he said have levelled such an unfounded allegation against him.

[8] R1 allegedly did not accede to the applicant's requests contained in his letter of 19 April 2018. Nevertheless, within the 21 days limited to show cause, the applicant replied (encl 5 exh P5) denying he had placed his signature on the application form to signify approval and averred inter alia that some other officer could have used his user ID to process the impugned application. The applicant also questioned the integrity of the department's computer system.

[9] By letter dated 20 December 2018 (encl 5 exh P6), the applicant was notified that he was dismissed for the charge levelled against him. Acting pursuant to reg 38(g) of the 1993 Regulations, he was dismissed with effect from 15 December 2018. He was notified tha