MUHAMAD IZWAN BIN MAZLAN v 1. ) ACP MOHD AMAR BIN MOHAJIN (PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

Confirms the narrow grounds for judicial review of a public-service disciplinary dismissal, holding that absent a statutory requirement there is no general duty to give reasons and that a decision free of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety will stand.

This High Court decision in Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 brought by a dismissed police officer. The applicant, having been granted leave, sought an order of certiorari to quash the decision to dismiss him from the service, along with a mandamus to compel the respondents to expunge his service record and reinstate him with back wages. The dismissal had been effected by the Lembaga Tatatertib Polis DiRaja Malaysia (Royal Malaysia Police Disciplinary Board) following proceedings under the Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 (Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993), and the applicant invoked Articles 5, 132 and 135 of the Federal Constitution in support of his challenge. The Court reviewed the grounds of alleged illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. A significant strand of the reasoning addressed whether the disciplinary authority was obliged to give reasons for its decision: the Court held that there is no general common-law duty to give reasons unless a statute so provides or an exceptional case warrants it, and that the 1993 Regulations contain no such requirement. It also relied on the Federal Court's decision in Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang v Utara Badi a/l Perumal for the proposition that an officer has no right to a separate plea in mitigation before sentence where the show-cause letter made clear that the proceedings could lead to dismissal or reduction in rank. Concluding that the decision had been made in accordance with the law and was not tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, the Court held that the applicant had failed to prove his case and dismissed the judicial review application with no order as to costs. The judgment illustrates the limited scope for reviewing a public-service disciplinary dismissal. Because the burden lay on the applicant to demonstrate a reviewable error, and none of the grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety was made out on the material before it, the Court held that the challenge could not succeed.