MOHD FAWWAZ JAFNI BIN MADZUKI v INSTITUT PENYELIDIKAN DAN KEMAJUAN PERTANIAN MALAYSIA (MARDI)

Case Significance

Marks the limits of judicial review of statutory-body discipline: the court examines reasonableness, rationality and proportionality rather than merits, and upholds a dismissal for persistent unauthorised absence where the medical evidence showed only temporary incapacity and remedial measures had failed.

This High Court decision concerns a substantive application for judicial review by a former support-staff employee — a natural person referred to here by role — against the Institut Penyelidikan dan Kemajuan Pertanian Malaysia (MARDI), the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, a statutory body. The applicant challenged his dismissal by the Disciplinary Committee for Dismissal or Demotion of Support Staff and the rejection of his appeal by the Appeals Committee, seeking certiorari to quash the dismissal and mandamus to compel reinstatement, payment of arrears and other relief.

The disciplinary action was taken under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605). The applicant faced charges of being absent from duty without leave or reasonable cause — a total of 56 days spread across 2019 to 2022 — contrary to the disciplinary regulations governing statutory bodies. His principal complaint was that the respondent had acted “unreasonably and irrationally by disregarding the Medical Board's findings and failing to follow Service Circular No. 4 of 1998”, contending that his absences were attributable to a medical condition.

The court rejected that challenge. It noted that eligibility for early retirement on medical grounds requires that the affliction be permanent, whereas both the Medical Board and the treating hospital had found the applicant's inability to perform to be temporary, with his symptoms “well controlled with medications”. He was therefore not eligible for retirement on medical grounds. The court was “satisfied that the Respondent acted reasonably and rationally”, having taken disciplinary action only after corrective and remedial measures — a lighter workload and counselling — had failed to change the pattern of absenteeism. Mindful of Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution and the proportionality principle in Tan Tek Seng, the court found the decision to dismiss was “not disproportionate” and that the dismissal was “a fair and just punishment”. The application was dismissed.

The judgment illustrates the limited scope of judicial review of disciplinary decisions by statutory bodies: the court examines reasonableness, rationality and proportionality, not the merits, and will not disturb a dismissal supported by evidence of persistent absenteeism unaddressed by remedial measures.