NOR AZIZ BIN MAT ISA 1. SUN TEOH TIA (SAC) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. WAN AZAHAR BIN WAN IDRIS (K/INSP), INSP TATATERTIB BN 6, PASUKAN GERAKAN AM B

NOR AZIZ BIN MAT ISA 1. SUN TEOH TIA (SAC) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. WAN AZAHAR BIN WAN IDRIS (K/INSP), INSP TATATERTIB BN 6, PASUKAN GERAKAN AM B

The Court affirmed the High Court: the disciplinary process complied with statutory and constitutional requirements, the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the misreference in the charge was a non‑fatal clerical error because the substance of the charge clearly invoked PTKPN para 8.1.3 and the applicant could and did respond; there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting quashing of the dismissal, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
W-01(A)-506-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Applicant (lans Koperal, Pdrm): Nor Aziz bin Mat Isa; Respondent 1 (chairman, Police Disciplinary Board, Bukit Aman): Sun Teoh Tia (SAC); Respondent 2 (police Disciplinary Board): Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman; Respondent 3 (inspector, Disciplinary Inspectorate, Bn 6 PGA Bakri): Wan Azahar bin Wan Idris (K/Insp); Respondent 4 (deputy Commander, Central Brigade, PGA Cheras): Azizan bin Abu Taat (ACP); Respondent 5 (deputy Commander, Central Brigade, PGA Cheras): Junaid bin Haji Zakaria (ACP); Respondent 6 (inspector General of Police): Ketua Polis Negara; Respondent 7 (government of Malaysia): Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Case Number
W-01(A)-506-12/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court Judicial Review / Appeal to Court of Appeal (determination on Merits)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Ultra Vires, Dismissal From Public Service, Interpretation of PTKPN, Certiorari
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Employment/disciplinary Law Police Disciplinary Proceedings Judicial Review Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Ultra Vires +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nor Aziz bin Mat Isa

Applicant (lans Koperal, Pdrm)

Sun Teoh Tia (SAC)

Respondent 1 (chairman, Police Disciplinary Board, Bukit Aman)

Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman

Respondent 2 (police Disciplinary Board)

Wan Azahar bin Wan Idris (K/Insp)

Respondent 3 (inspector, Disciplinary Inspectorate, Bn 6 PGA Bakri)

Azizan bin Abu Taat (ACP)

Respondent 4 (deputy Commander, Central Brigade, PGA Cheras)

Junaid bin Haji Zakaria (ACP)

Respondent 5 (deputy Commander, Central Brigade, PGA Cheras)

Ketua Polis Negara

Respondent 6 (inspector General of Police)

Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent 7 (government of Malaysia)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court Judicial Review / Appeal to Court of Appeal (determination on Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misreference in the disciplinary charge (PTKPN para 2 vs para 8.1.3) rendered the charge fatally defective
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary process complied with principles of natural justice and statutory/regulatory requirements
  3. 3 Whether the decision of the Disciplinary Board to dismiss the applicant was illegal, irrational or tainted by procedural impropriety

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the High Court: the disciplinary process complied with statutory and constitutional requirements, the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the misreference in the charge was a non‑fatal clerical error because the substance of the charge clearly invoked PTKPN para 8.1.3 and the applicant could and did respond; there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting quashing of the dismissal, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs ordered in favour of respondents