MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN UMAR v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Case Significance

Instructive on the narrow grounds for judicial review of a police disciplinary dismissal, and on the deference the courts accord a disciplinary board's assessment of the seriousness of misconduct under the doctrine of proportionality.

This High Court decision at Muar, Johor, is a judicial review challenging the dismissal of a police constable from the Royal Malaysia Police by the Johor Contingent Disciplinary Board (Lembaga Tatatertib Kontinjen Johor). The application, heard together with a companion review by another dismissed officer, sought declaratory, certiorari and mandamus relief on the footing that the dismissal was unlawful and that the applicant remained entitled to salary and other benefits. The applicant had received a show-cause letter carrying the risk of dismissal or reduction in rank, and challenged the disciplinary process on several administrative-law grounds. These included whether the charge was bad for duplicity or was incomplete, whether the documents relevant to the charges had been supplied, whether the right to be heard, including by oral representation, had been observed, whether the process complied with regulations 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, whether the failure to provide grounds of decision amounted to a breach of natural justice, and whether the punishment of dismissal was so harsh and unreasonable as to offend the doctrine of proportionality. The court, per Kalyana Kumar a/l Sockalingam JC, reviewed these grounds against the settled principles governing judicial review of disciplinary decisions, namely that the court intervenes only for illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, and that the court does not sit in appeal on the merits of the punishment. On proportionality it emphasised the long line of authority that a disciplinary tribunal, and an employer including the Government, is better placed to judge the seriousness of the misconduct of its members or employees, so that only an exceptional case would justify the court disturbing the punishment. Finding nothing exceptional and no illegality, irrationality or disproportionality in the Board's decision, the court dismissed the application, making no order as to costs in view of the applicants' loss of employment. The judgment is instructive on the narrow grounds for judicial review of a police disciplinary dismissal.