w-01a-375-07-2021 — Professor Dato' Dr. Mohd Fauzi Bin Ramlan v 1. ) Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) 2. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA 3. ) MENTERI PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA

Catchwords

Investigation Committee (IIC) Legitimacy - DAC Hearing Was Not Fair - Right to Cross-Examine or Respond - No Valid Waiver - Natural Justice Violated Facts The Appellant, Professor Dato’ Dr. Mohd Fauzi Bin Ramlan, a former Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605). He was found guilty of insubordination by UPM’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) and penalised by a reduction in rank from VK6 to VK7. His appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Committee (DAC) was dismissed. The Appellant subsequently sought judicial review of the DAC’s decision, which was dismissed by the High Court. The present appeal challenges that dismissal. Issues [1]Whether the disciplinary process, particularly before the DAC, complied with the rules of natural justice. [2]Whether the DAC’s failure to allow the Appellant to be present during witness examination constituted a procedural impropriety. [3]Whether defects in earlier stages (IIC, IC, DC) were “cured” by the DAC’s appellate process. Held Appeal Allowed – The DAC’s decision was vitiated by procedural impropriety and set aside. 1st Respondent (UPM) to pay costs to the Appellant in the sum of RM25,000.00 (subject to allocatur) as costs here and below. We make no order as to costs against the 2nd Respondent (DAC) and the 3rd Respondent.

Practice Areas

Investigation Committee (IIC) Legitimacy Facts The Appellant, Professor Dato’ Dr. Mohd Fauzi Bin Ramlan, a former Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605). He was found guilty of insubordination by UPM’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) and penalised by a reduction in rank from VK6 to VK7. His appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Committee (DAC) was dismissed. The Appellant subsequently sought judicial review of the DAC’s decision, which was dismissed by the High Court. The present appeal challenges that dismissal. Issues 1Whether the disciplinary process, particularly before the DAC, complied with the rules of natural justice. 2Whether the DAC’s failure to allow the Appellant to be present during witness examination constituted a procedural impropriety. 3Whether defects in earlier stages (IIC, IC, DC) were “cured” by the DAC’s appellate process. Held Appeal Allowed

Judges (3)

Choo Kah Sing Coram Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali Coram S. Nantha Balan a/l E.s. Moorthy Delivered

Counsel (9)

James Monteiro Firm Zain & Co. Firm Gunaseelan Tambinathan Counsel Appellant Isabella Cheah Chooi Mun Counsel Respondent John Skelchy Counsel Appellant Kok Su Ann Counsel Respondent Nur Liyana Nor Azman Counsel Respondent R. Kumaradevan Counsel Appellant Shirlena Yogeswaran Counsel Appellant

Parties (4)

JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA Respondent Menteri Pendidikan Malaysia Respondent Universiti Putra Malaysia Respondent Professor Dato' Dr. Mohd Fauzi bin Ramlan Appellant

Summary

The former Vice-Chancellor of UPM challenged his disciplinary reduction in rank from VK6 to VK7 for insubordination, after his appeal was dismissed by the Disciplinary Appeal Committee and his judicial review dismissed by the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the DAC's decision, finding the DAC violated natural justice by examining witnesses in the appellant's absence, and ordered reinstatement to VK6 with back pay and benefits.

What was the outcome of Professor Dato' Dr. Mohd Fauzi Bin Ramlan v 1. ) Universiti Putra Malaysia (U...?

<p>The former Vice-Chancellor of UPM challenged his disciplinary reduction in rank from VK6 to VK7 for insubordination, after his appeal was dismissed...

Statutes Cited

Federal Constitution

Art 135(2) Art 160(2) Art 5(1)

Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Cap 605)

The disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were regulated by the provisions of the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Cap 605)

Cases Cited (45)

UK (19)

[1911] AC 179 [1924] 1 KB 256 [1945] 2 All ER 131 [1947] 1 All ER 109 [1947] KB 321 [1955] 1 AC 374 [1958] 2 All ER 579 [1960] 1 All ER 631 [1960] 1 WLR 223 [1960] 1 WLR 235 [1962] 2 QB 677 [1969] 2 All ER 274 [1971] 1 WLR 1578 [1971] 1 WLR 679 [1979] 2 All ER 440 [1979] QB 283 [1980] AC 574 [1985] AC 374 [1987] 1 All ER 940

MY (26)

[1962] 1 MLJ 169 [1962] MLJ 169 [1970] 1 MLJ 50 [1971] 2 MLJ 181 [1974] 1 MLJ 138 [1976] 1 MLJ 203 [1980] 2 MLJ 116 [1981] 1 MLJ 64 [1987] 1 MLJ 124 [1988] 1 MLJ 260 [1989] 1 MLJ 487 [1990] 3 MLJ 364 [1994] 2 MLJ 114 [1996] 1 MLJ 261 [1996] 2 CLJ 771 [2009] 2 MLJ 36 [2010] 2 AMR 231 [2011] 5 AMR 688 [2011] 5 MLJ 465 [2012] 1 CLJ 448 [2012] 3 CLJ 577 [2012] 3 MLJ 149 [2018] 9 CLJ 141 [2021] MLJU 2761 [2022] MLJU 351 [2023] MLJU 2405