DATO’ DR MOHAMAD RAMEEZ BIN YAHAYA 1. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN (NO. 1) 2. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA

DATO’ DR MOHAMAD RAMEEZ BIN YAHAYA 1. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM KUMPULAN PENGURUSAN (NO. 1) 2. LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA

The appeal is allowed because the Disciplinary Appeal Board committed a serious procedural impropriety by remitting the 2nd charge without setting aside the earlier imposition and because the Disciplinary Board failed to specify the effective commencement date of a time‑limited salary reduction, producing wrongful salary deductions and prejudicing the appellant; those defects tainted the proceedings and warranted quashing of both disciplinary decisions.

Citation
W-01(A) -275-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Applicant: Dato' Dr Mohamad Rameez bin Yahaya; 1st Respondent / Disciplinary Board: Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Kumpulan Pengurusan (No.1); 2nd Respondent / Disciplinary Appeal Board: Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Case Number
W-01(A) -275-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Judicial Review Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; disciplinary decisions quashed
Legal Topics
Procedural Impropriety, Illegality, Irrationality (wednesbury), Certiorari, Natural Justice (audi Alteram Partem), Effective Date of Punishment, Treasury Instructions and Tender Procedures
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Public Employment / Service Law Constitutional Law Disciplinary Proceedings Procedural Impropriety Illegality Irrationality (wednesbury) Certiorari +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dato' Dr Mohamad Rameez bin Yahaya

Appellant / Applicant

Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Kumpulan Pengurusan (No.1)

1st Respondent / Disciplinary Board

Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia

2nd Respondent / Disciplinary Appeal Board

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Judicial Review Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Appeal Board erred by remitting a charge without setting aside the earlier imposed punishment so as to prejudice the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Disciplinary Board failed to specify the effective date of a time‑limited salary reduction and whether that uncertainty rendered the punishment unlawful
  3. 3 Whether failure to constitute a different quorum or form an investigation committee and failure to give reasons rendered proceedings biased or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the Disciplinary Appeal Board committed a serious procedural impropriety by remitting the 2nd charge without setting aside the earlier imposition and because the Disciplinary Board failed to specify the effective commencement date of a time‑limited salary reduction, producing wrongful salary deductions and prejudicing the appellant; those defects tainted the proceedings and warranted quashing of both disciplinary decisions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; disciplinary decisions quashed

Orders

  • Certiorari quashing Disciplinary Board decision dated 06.04.2017
  • Certiorari quashing Disciplinary Appeal Board decision dated 19.03.2018