JAMIL SHAM BIN MD YUSOF v 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited role of the court in reviewing internal disciplinary decisions of public bodies, and confirms that a disparity in treatment between officers does not, without more, render a disciplinary punishment disproportionate or unlawful.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns judicial review of a disciplinary decision imposing a reduction in salary on a public officer. The applicant, an officer of the customs department, had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings and was punished with a reduction of salary spanning three salary movements over a period of thirty-six months. He applied under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 to quash that decision, invoking the familiar grounds of judicial review — illegality, procedural impropriety and unreasonableness — and complaining, among other things, that another officer said to have been in a comparable position had not been proceeded against. The court examined both the conduct of the disciplinary process and the proportionality of the punishment. It held that the mere fact that no action had been taken against the other officer, even if the applicant's assertion about him were true, could have no bearing on the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the applicant, whose own conduct fell to be assessed on its own terms. More broadly, the court found nothing in the way the proceedings had been conducted or in the decision itself that disclosed procedural impropriety, illegality or unreasonableness of the kind that would justify judicial intervention. Emphasising that judicial review is concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision-making process rather than with the merits of the disciplinary outcome, and that the choice of punishment within the permissible range is a matter for the disciplinary authority, the court concluded that there was no basis on which it could interfere. It accordingly dismissed the application for judicial review, making no order as to costs. The judgment illustrates the limited role of the court in reviewing internal disciplinary decisions of public bodies, and confirms that a disparity in treatment between officers does not, without more, render a punishment disproportionate or unlawful.