NOR AZLINDA BINTI MOHD ABDULLAH v 1. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN BUKAN EKSEKUTIF (JKTKBE) TABUNG HAJI 2. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB KUMPULAN BUKAN EKSEKUTIF TABUNG HAJI 3. ) LEMBAGA TABUNG HAJI

Case Significance

Illustrates that a criminal 'no further action' outcome does not bar separate internal disciplinary proceedings, and that judicial review of a statutory body's disciplinary decision is confined to the grounds properly pleaded in the Order 53 statement.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, sitting in its Special Powers Division, concerns an application for judicial review challenging the applicant's dismissal from employment. The applicant had been employed by Lembaga Tabung Haji, a statutory body governed by the Tabung Haji Act 1995, rising to the position of a clerk in its Human Capital Department. The disciplinary proceedings arose after an account holder lodged a police report alleging that the applicant had erroneously credited a sum of money into his account. The applicant was briefly remanded, but the police investigation ended with the matter classified as requiring no further action. The employer nonetheless pursued internal disciplinary action, issuing a charge under the Tabung Haji Disciplinary Regulations 2010, and after a show-cause process the first respondent committee decided that the applicant should be dismissed. Her appeal to the second respondent committee was rejected.

The two grounds pressed in the judicial review were that the respondents' decision was tainted by irrationality and by procedural impropriety. On procedural impropriety, the court closely scrutinised the affidavit evidence tracing the sequence from the show-cause letter issued under Regulation 37 of the 2010 Regulations, through the applicant's representation, the first committee's decision to dismiss, and the appeal committee's dismissal of her appeal. It found that the process had been conducted in accordance with the 2010 Regulations and that there was no procedural impropriety. The court also declined to consider a further ground raised only at the written-submission stage, since it had not been pleaded in the statement filed under Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012.

Concluding that the applicant had failed to establish either ground for judicial review, the court dismissed the application with costs of RM8,000.00, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates the limits of judicial review of employment discipline by a statutory body, and the importance of confining the challenge to the grounds properly pleaded in the statement.