ROSLI BIN MOHAMAD v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO.1) JABATAN PENJARA MALAYSIA 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 4. ) Jabatan Penjara Malaysia (JPM)

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited grounds for judicial review of a public-service disciplinary decision under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, and the application of proportionality to a reduction in rank of a prison officer under the Prison Regulations 2000.

This High Court decision concerns a judicial review, under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, of a disciplinary decision to reduce a prison officer in rank. The applicant, a prison officer, had been found liable on a disciplinary charge of accepting a sum of money from the mother of a prisoner, and was punished with a reduction in rank and a corresponding reduction in salary under regulation 38(f) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993. The charge was founded on regulation 255(1) of the Prison Regulations 2000, which forbids a prison officer from receiving any fee or reward or having any money dealings with or on behalf of a prisoner or a prisoner's visitor, and on regulation 4(2)(f), (g) and (i) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, concerning dishonesty, irresponsibility and disobedience or discreditable conduct. On judicial review, the applicant complained, among other things, of the denial of an oral hearing and a failure to give reasons, and invoked the doctrine of proportionality. The Court examined the decision against the established grounds of judicial review and held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety on the part of the disciplinary bodies. It observed that the applicant, entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a prison officer, had failed to discharge them with the requisite integrity and honesty, and that a reduction in rank, rather than dismissal, was not a disproportionate outcome. It accordingly dismissed the application for judicial review with costs. The judgment illustrates the limited grounds of judicial review of public-service disciplinary decisions and the application of proportionality to a disciplinary sanction. The decision reaffirms that the courts do not sit in appeal over the merits of a disciplinary sanction, but review only the legality, rationality and procedural fairness of the decision, and that a public servant who breaches the trust reposed in his office cannot expect the sanction to be set aside.