Judicial review of disciplinary actions is focused on the process followed, not the merits, confirming the discretion of authorities under public service regulations.

JUDGMENT

Azizah Nawawi J:

Application

[1] In this application, the Applicant is seeking an order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 3rd Respondent, Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam dated 2 July 2018 (the "Decision") which had affirmed the decision of the 2nd Respondent, Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) dated 3 December 2017, dismissing the Applicant from his employment.

[2] The grounds of the application are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.

[3] Having considered the application and the submissions of the parties, this court had dismissed the application with costs.

The Salient Facts

[4] The Applicant was employed by the Government of Malaysia ("GOM") as an Immigration Officer, Grade KP19, stationed at Bahagian Penguatkuasaan, Ibu Pejabat Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Putrajaya.

[5] A disciplinary investigation was carried out against the Applicant when a report was received regarding an allegation that he had submitted government medical certificates which were suspected to be fake from the Serdang Hospital and the Ampang Hospital.

[6] A show cause letter dated 28 December 2016 was issued to the Applicant pursuant to the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("1993 Regulations") and the disciplinary charge reads as follows:

"Pertuduhan:

Bahawa tuan, Encik Muhammad Sazrin bin Ismail, No KP: 901021-13-6475, Pegawai Imigresen Gred KP19 semasa bertugas di Bahagian Penguatkuasa, Ibu Pejabat Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia telah didapati mengemukakan empat (4) sijil cuti sakit kerajaan yang disahkan palsu di mana tiga (3) daripadanya adalah dari Hospital Serdang dan satu (1) daripada Hospital Ampang seperti berikut:

Perbuatan tersebut membolehkan tuan dikenakan tindakan tatatertib selaras dengan Peraturan 24, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 dan boleh diertikan sebagai melanggar tatakelakuan di bawah Peraturan 4(2)(g) dan 4(2(i), Peraturan-peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tataterib) 1993 yang berbunyi seperti berikut:

Peraturan 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh-

(f) tidak jujur atau tidak amanah; dan

(g) tidak bertanggungjawab

Jika tuan didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan di atas tuan boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993"

[7] The Applicant was given 21 days to respond to the show cause letter.

[8] The Applicant submitted a letter of representation dated 18 January 2017.

[9] After considering the Applicant's representation, the 2nd Respondent, the Disciplinary Authority ("DA") held that the Applicant has failed to exculpate himself in respect of the Charge. The DA then finds him guilty of the disciplinary charge and he was dismissed from service under reg 38(g) of the 1993 Regulations. The applicant was informed of the decision dated 3 December 2017 vide a letter dated 1 March 2018.

[10] Vide a letter dated 8 March 2018, the Applicant had submitted an appeal to the Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam (3rd Respondent).

[11] Vide a letter dated 10 July 2018, the Applicant was informed that his appeal was rejected by the 3rd Respondent, which had affirmed the finding and decision of the DA.

[12] Aggrieved by the said decision, the Applicant had filed this application to quash the said decision.

The Findings Of The court

[13] In T Ganeswaran v. Suruhanjaya Polis DiRaja Malaysia & 1 lagi, 2005 MarsdenLR 2403 , the court of Appeal, in a matter of reviewing the decision of the disciplinary body, has held as follows:

"Mengenai perkara ini ingin kami merujuk kepada keputusan House of Lords di dalam kes Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 3 AH ER 141 yang menyatakan:

Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made, and, therefore the court is not entitled on an application for judicial review to consider whether the decision itself was fair and reasonable.

Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decisi