Disciplinary actions against public sector employees must comply with procedural fairness as established in governing statutes.

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant (the Applicant in the High COURT) against of the decision of the High COURT dated 30th September 2015 that dismissed the Appellant's Judicial Review Application (JR Application) with costs of RM4,000.00 to be paid to the Respondents.

[2] We heard this appeal on 8th September 2016. After perusing the Records of Appeal, the written submissions filed by the respective learned Counsels and upon hearing learned Counsels, we adjourned the matter for our consideration and decision. Before we adjourned the same, we ordered both learned Counsels to further submit to us on three main issues:

(a) Whether there was a requirement to appoint a Committee of Investigation pursuant to Regulation 29(4) of the MPSP Disciplinary Regulations to investigate the charge against the Applicant?;

(b) Whether the decision-making process was tainted with biasness?; and

(c) Whether the COURT can order specific performance of a contract of service?.

[3] We now give our decision and the reasons for the same.

[4] We will refer to the parties as they were described in the High COURT, the Applicant, the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent respectively.

Brief Background Facts

[5] This was a substantive JR Application filed by the Applicant to challenge his dismissal from the services of the 2nd Respondent.

[6] The facts were extracted from the various affidavits, the written submissions filed herein by the respective parties and the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC). In order to save judicial time, some of the facts as highlighted by the respective parties in the above-mentioned documents are adopted herein with and / or without modifications.

[7] The Applicant was an Engineer (Grade 41) attached to the 2nd Respondent's office in Bukit Mertajam, Penang.

[8] The 1st Respondent is the Disciplinary Authority of the 2nd Respondent, appointed pursuant to Regulation 26 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Municipal Council of the Province Wellesley Regulations 1995 ( MPSP Disciplinary Regulations ).

[9] On 14th March 2012, the Applicant was transferred from the Engineering Department of the 2nd Respondent to its Health Services Department. Following from the transfer, the Applicant filed Civil Suit No 21NCVC-14-04/2012 to challenge the transfer. However, the same was dismissed by the High COURT on procedural grounds. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Applicant appealed to the COURT of Appeal (CoA) and the appeal too was dismissed by the CoA. The Applicant then filed a judicial review application to challenge his transfer and the said case is still pending before the High COURT.

[10] By its letter dated 4th October 2013, the Chairman of the 1st Respondent informed the Applicant of the 1st Respondent's intention to take disciplinary action against the Applicant with a view to dismissal or reduction in rank. The Applicant was given 21 days from the date of the receipt of the letter to make a written representation to the 1st Respondent.

[11] The charge against the Applicant was as follows:

"Bahawa tuan, Encik Mohd Sobri Bin Che Hassan (12245) Jurutera Gred J41 (NO K P : 751215-02-5465), Jurutera Gred 41 semasa bertugas di Jabatan Perkhidmatan Kesihatan, Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai telah membawa isu pertukaran tuan dari Jabatan Kejuruteraan ke Jabatan Perkhi