MOHD FIRDAUS BIN JAHAYA v 1. ) JABATAN AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PERAK 2. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM NEGERI PERAK BAGI KUMPULAN SOKONGAN NO. 1 3. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 4. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 5. ) Kerajaan Negeri Perak

Case Significance

Grants judicial review of a public-service dismissal for procedural unfairness — including the failure to give contemporaneous reasons — and fashions relief limited to reinstatement with salary and benefits for the unexpired contract term, refusing general damages.

This High Court (Ipoh, Appeal and Special Powers Division) decision concerns an application for judicial review by a public servant challenging his dismissal from public employment. The applicant sought orders of certiorari and mandamus in respect of a disciplinary decision communicated by letter dated 17 October 2023 from the State Secretary's office and of the decision of the disciplinary appeal board communicated by letter dated 18 January 2024, invoking the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1995 and Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. The respondents included the state Islamic religious department, the disciplinary board, the disciplinary appeal board, the Public Services Commission and the State Government.

The judicial review raised questions of procedural fairness in public employment, in particular the failure to give contemporaneous reasons for the dismissal, and whether such a failure amounted to procedural unfairness that denied the applicant a meaningful right of judicial review. It also raised whether silence in the governing statute or regulations excused the duty to give reasons, and questions going to the disciplinary jurisdiction, including whether the public service rules applied to conduct committed before the applicant entered public service and whether the state authority had acted ultra vires.

The court's disposition addressed the appropriate remedy for the procedural irregularity found. It allowed the prayers in the agreed draft order proposed by the applicant, with minor modifications, and granted a further prayer in part, limited strictly to reinstatement with salary and benefits for the unexpired term of the contract, while refusing general damages. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of RM5,000 to the applicant. The judgment illustrates the treatment of a public-employment dismissal challenged for want of contemporaneous reasons and procedural unfairness, and the fashioning of relief confined to reinstatement with salary and benefits for the unexpired contractual term as the appropriate remedy to cure the procedural irregularity.