1. ) DATUK ROGER TAN KOR MEE PENGERUSI JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN TERTINGGI DAN EKSEKUTIF (TUJUAN BUANG BUANG KERJA ATAU TURUN PANGKAT) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AIR NEGARA (SPAN) 2. ) DATUK LIANG TECK MENG PENGERUSI JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN TERTINGGI DAN EKSEKUTIF SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AIR NEGARA (SPAN) 3. ) ANGGOTA-ANGGOTA JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN TERTINGGI DAN EKSEKUTIF SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AIR NEGARA (SPAN) 4. ) DATUK SERI PANGL...

Case Significance

Illustrates the principle that judicial review will not quash the dismissal of a statutory-corporation employee for procedural impropriety where the substantive decision to dismiss is correct: a fair process would have produced the same result, so the procedural complaint necessarily fails — the Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal and restored the dismissal.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya, delivered in a judgment by Azizul Azmi Adnan JCA, concerns the judicial review of the dismissal of an employee of a statutory corporation, and the principle that a correct dismissal decision is not vitiated by procedural complaints. The appellants were the chairmen and members of the disciplinary and disciplinary-appeal committees of the Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara (the National Water Services Commission, SPAN), together with SPAN itself; the respondent was a former employee whose services had been terminated following disciplinary proceedings. The respondent had obtained judicial review relief in the High Court, and the appellants appealed, with the respondent cross-appealing. The central question was whether the ultimate decision to dismiss the employee was correct, regardless of any complaint of procedural impropriety in the disciplinary process.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It held that where the ultimate decision to dismiss an employee is found to be correct on its merits, a complaint of procedural impropriety in reaching that decision cannot avail the employee, because a rehearing conducted without the alleged procedural defect would necessarily arrive at the same result. Having concluded that the substantive decision to dismiss the respondent was correct, the court reasoned that the respondent's procedural challenge must necessarily fail. It accordingly allowed the appellants' appeal and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court dated 7 March 2022, and awarded costs of RM30,000 here and below, subject to allocatur. The court's approach reflects the pragmatic limit on judicial review that relief may be withheld where quashing the decision and remitting it would be an empty exercise, the same result being inevitable on a properly conducted rehearing; the remedy is discretionary and is not granted to vindicate procedure for its own sake. The judgment is a useful illustration of the principle that judicial review will not quash a dismissal for procedural impropriety where the substantive decision to dismiss is correct and a fair process would have produced the same outcome.