1. ) MUKHLIS BIN HOMAIDI 2. ) MUHAMMAD HELMI BIN MAT ALIB v DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

Case Significance

Illustrates the summary striking-out jurisdiction where a public servant challenges a disciplinary dismissal that follows from a criminal conviction, and the deference owed to a disciplinary board acting within its statutory powers.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application by the local authority to strike out a suit brought against it by two of its former enforcement officers, under Order 18 rule 19(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012, on the footing that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was otherwise unsustainable. The two plaintiffs had been enforcement assistants in the enforcement directorate of the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (Kuala Lumpur City Hall). The disciplinary chain that led to their dismissal was set out in detail: the integrity division confirmed with the police that both had been arrested, remanded and investigated under section 148 of the Penal Code; the magistrate's court confirmed that both had been convicted under section 160 of the Penal Code and fined; and, on the strength of those magistrate's reports, the integrity division prepared a report that was placed before the independent Disciplinary Board, which issued charges and ultimately decided the disciplinary outcome. The court's task was to decide whether, on those undisputed facts, the plaintiffs had any reasonable cause of action against the authority. The court held that they did not, because the applicable disciplinary regulations, including the provisions governing the Disciplinary Board's powers in cases of conviction, plainly empowered the Board to dismiss an enforcement officer found to have been convicted of a criminal offence. The conviction arose from the plaintiffs' involvement in a public affray while on duty, which the court regarded as a serious matter reflecting on the service. Concluding that the Disciplinary Board had acted within its powers and that the plaintiffs had no reasonable cause of action against the authority, the court allowed the striking-out application with costs and struck out the plaintiffs' claim. The judgment is a useful illustration of the summary striking-out jurisdiction where a public servant challenges a disciplinary dismissal that flows from a criminal conviction, and of the deference owed to a disciplinary board acting within its statutory powers.