MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN ZAILANI v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 4. ) KETUA POLIS NEGERI KEDAH 5. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM)

Case Significance

Illustrates the criminal-conviction exception to the right to be heard under proviso (a) to Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution — a public officer dismissed under Regulation 33(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 as a consequence of a criminal conviction is not entitled to a prior hearing — and that payment of a fine does not absolve the separate administrative consequences.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar concerns an application for judicial review by a police officer challenging his dismissal from the Royal Malaysia Police following a conviction in the Syariah Court. The applicant, a lance corporal, had been convicted on his own guilty plea of khalwat (close proximity) under the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment of Kedah and fined RM2,500, which he paid. On the strength of that conviction the Disciplinary Board of the Royal Malaysia Police convened under Regulation 33(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 — which provides for disciplinary action on the basis of a criminal conviction — and decided to dismiss him from service. He sought certiorari to quash the dismissal, a declaration that it was void, and mandamus for reinstatement.

The cornerstone of the applicant's case was that he had been denied procedural fairness and the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) before dismissal. The court examined the exception to the right to be heard in proviso (a) to Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution, which dispenses with a hearing where a public officer is dismissed on the ground of conduct that has led to a criminal conviction. It also noted that the right-to-be-heard issue had been raised only in submissions and not pleaded in the original statement, and that parties are bound by their pleadings.

The court held that the respondents had strictly adhered to the procedural and statutory requirements of the 1993 Regulations, that the dismissal was a direct and lawful consequence of a valid criminal conviction evaluated alongside the applicant's service record, and that payment of the fine did not absolve him of the separate administrative consequences. Finding no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, the court dismissed the application with costs. The judgment illustrates the operation of the criminal-conviction exception to the right to be heard in public-service discipline.