MOHAMMAD HANIF BIN ADENAN v 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

A judicial review of a police-force dismissal that failed on procedural-impropriety, proportionality and duty-to-give-reasons grounds, with the dismissal upheld.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for judicial review brought by a former corporal of the Royal Malaysia Police who was dismissed from the force. The dismissal followed a disciplinary process in which the applicant was first issued a show-cause notice in respect of two charges, made representations, and then, before any decision was reached on those representations, had that notice revoked by the disciplinary board (Lembaga Tatatertib Polis DiRaja Malaysia) and replaced with a fresh show-cause notice comprising six charges. The applicant again made representations, was found not to have exculpated himself, and was dismissed with effect from 28 July 2023. The underlying complaint concerned an allegation of extortion made against the applicant and other officers.

The judicial review raised three principal grounds. The first was procedural impropriety: the applicant argued that the board ought to have determined the representations to the first show-cause notice rather than revoking it and starting afresh, and that the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 did not authorise such a revocation. The second was proportionality: whether dismissal was disproportionate to the disciplinary offences. The third was whether the board owed a duty to give reasons when communicating the decision to dismiss.

The Court examined each ground against the framework of administrative-law review, which is concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the disciplinary finding. It held that the applicant had not established a case for review, concluding on the reasons point that in the circumstances no duty to give reasons arose. The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents costs of RM3,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of how the courts scrutinise police disciplinary procedure, particularly the revocation and reissue of a show-cause notice and the limits of the duty to give reasons in public-service dismissals.