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)

ka-25-22-12-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 16 December 2025 • KA-25-22-12/2023 • 26 min read

25 cases cited (0 SG, 25 foreign)

Catchwords

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review — Certiorari and Mandamus — Dismissal from service — Police officer convicted of khalwat in Syariah Court — Disciplinary Board imposed punishment of dismissal — Whether applicant was denied the right to be heard — Exceptions to the right to be heard under proviso (a) to art 135(2) of the Federal Constitution PUBLIC SERVANTS: Disciplinary proceedings — Dismissal — Police officer convicted of criminal offence in Syariah Court — Evaluation of punishment CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings — Bound by pleadings — Unpleaded issues — Application for judicial review — Applicant raised issue of denial of right to be heard during submissions — Issue not pleaded in original statement filed under O. 53 r. 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 — CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment — Statement in judicial review — Application to amend statement late in proceedings to include unpleaded ground — Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 7 — CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judicial review — Interlocutory application — Cross-examination of deponent — Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 6 — Application to cross-examine deponent to obtain statistics on dismissal of other police officers

Practice Areas

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review

Judges (1)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee Delivered

Counsel (5)

Kedah State Legal Advisor's Office Firm Mior Faridalathrash & Associate Firm Aiman Hakim bin Kamaruzzaman Counsel Applicant Mior Faridalathrash bin Wahid Counsel Applicant Norshuhada Mohd Yatim Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA Respondent KETUA POLIS NEGERI KEDAH Respondent Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN Respondent Polis Diraja Malaysia Respondent Muhammad Firdaus bin Zailani Applicant

Case Significance

MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN ZAILANI v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated December 16, 2025 (citation: ka-25-22-12-2023). <p>A police lance corporal sought judicial review of his dismissal from PDRM following a Syariah Court conviction for khalwat. The court dismissed the application, finding the Disciplinary Board properly exercised its power under proviso (a) to Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution which allows dismissal based on criminal conviction without a separate hearing. The court also found the applicant's attempt to introduce the right to be heard as an issue was improperly unpleaded and his applica The case was decided by John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee. Counsel appearing: Aiman Hakim bin Kamaruzzaman (counsel for applicant), Mior Faridalathrash bin Wahid (counsel for applicant), Norshuhada Mohd Yatim (counsel for respondent).

Summary

A police lance corporal sought judicial review of his dismissal from PDRM following a Syariah Court conviction for khalwat. The court dismissed the application, finding the Disciplinary Board properly exercised its power under proviso (a) to Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution which allows dismissal based on criminal conviction without a separate hearing. The court also found the applicant's attempt to introduce the right to be heard as an issue was improperly unpleaded and his application to amend was rejected.

What was the outcome of MUHAMMAD FIRDAUS BIN ZAILANI v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB...?

<p>A police lance corporal sought judicial review of his dismissal from PDRM following a Syariah Court conviction for khalwat. The court dismissed the...

Statutes Cited

Federal Constitution

Art 135(2) Art 7(2)

Rules of Court 2012

Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)

Cases Cited (25)

UK (2)

[1982] 3 All ER 141 [1985] AC 374

MY (23)

[1981] 1 MLJ 304 [1991] 1 MLJ 417 [1995] 1 CLJ 619 [1996] 2 MLJ 771 [1997] 1 CLJ 147 [1998] 1 CLJ 405 [1998] 1 MLJ 153 [1999] 3 MLJ 515 [2001] 6 CLJ 273 [2005] 2 CLJ 108 [2005] 3 CLJ 302 [2010] 8 CLJ 629 [2012] 1 CLJ 448 [2012] 3 MLJ 149 [2012] CLJ 448 [2014] MLJU 1887 [2018] 2 CLJ 513 [2021] 5 MLJ 857 [2022] 12 MLJ 233 [2023] 3 MLJ 645 [2023] 5 MLJ 167 [2023] 9 MLJ 611 [2025] 9 MLJ 611