Judicial review of public service dismissals focuses on the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision if fair procedures were followed.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of judicial review brought by the Appellant on his dismissal from the Royal Malaysian Police Force ("PDRM").

[2] On 7 March 2023, we unanimously dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Background

[3] The Appellant joined the PDRM (Personnel No G/17111) in 2006 and held the last rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police.

[4] On 28 January 2017, the Appellant was detained under s 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("DD(SPM)A"). He thereafter on 28 March 2017 received a detention order for detention of 2 years at the Simpang Renggam Moral Rehabilitation Centre in Johore issued pursuant to the DD(SPM)A commencing from 28 March 2017 ("Detention Order").

[5] The Inspector General of Police then on 25 April 2017 in the exercise of disciplinary powers delegated by the Police Force Commission via Instrument of Delegation of Certain Functions, Powers, Duties and Responsibilities (P.U.(B) 441/2000) issued a suspension of service order effective 28 March 2017 ("Service Suspension Order") to the Appellant.

[6] On 13 July 2017, the Appellant received a suspension of detention order also issued pursuant to the DD(SPM)A which resulted in the stay of the Service Suspension Order and a further order requiring the Appellant to undergo restricted residence in Mukim Tebrau, Johore issued pursuant to s 7(1) the DD(SPM)A ("Restriction Order").

[7] The Appellant challenged the Detention Order and Restriction Order via separate judicial review proceedings on 28 August 2017 as per High Court of Kuala Lumpur Judicial Review Application No.: WA-25-212- 08-2017 but failed. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant filed an appeal to this Court vide Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-177-03-2018, but the appeal was dismissed on 5 August 2018.

[8] Subsequently, the Police Force Commission, ie the 2nd Respondent on 30 January 2020 decided that the Appellant be imposed with punishment of dismissal in accordance with reg 38(g) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 ("Regulations") based on the Detention Order/ Restriction Order ("Decision"). The dismissal of the Appellant was conveyed to the Appellant via a letter dated 10 February 2020 signed by Dato' Jamil Rakon, ie the 1st Respondent in his capacity as secretary of the 2nd Respondent.

[9] As a result, the Appellant on 27 August 2020 commenced judicial review to quash the dismissal Decision in the Penang High Court.

In The High Court

[10] The Appellant contended that the decision-making process of the 2nd Respondent's dismissal Decision was tainted with procedural impropriety because he was neither informed of the grounds of the intended disciplinary action nor accorded reasonable opportunity to be heard. In addition, he was denied the right to mitigate that resulted in a disproportionate sentence imposed on him. He was also denied the right to appeal against the dismissal Decision that was made without reasons given for his dismissal. Finally, the Appellant contended that the dismissal Decision is ultra vires.

[11] The Respondents in rebuttal primarily counter-contended that the dismissal Decision was properly and correctly made as well as enforced following the due process of law.

[12] The learned High Court Judge found that the disciplinary action that led to the dismissal Decision was done in accordance with the law. He concluded that procedural and substantive fairness have been accorded to the Appellant and that there has been no breach of natural justice whatsoever. Consequently, he found no merits in the judicial review application and dismissed the same with costs of RM2,000.00 (subject to allocatur) to the