NASRUDDIN BIN MOHAMAD 1. ) KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU

NASRUDDIN BIN MOHAMAD 1. ) KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU

The Court allowed the appeal because the respondents failed to comply with mandatory procedural and statutory safeguards: no government medical officer certification in the prescribed form existed at the material times; the disciplinary and r.49 procedures (report to Government and recommendation) were not followed; the third respondent’s change from dismissal proceedings to termination infringed the appellant’s legitimate expectation; and there was no proven lawful adoption/modification of Regulations 1993 under s.45, rendering the termination unlawful and subject to certiorari.

Citation
T-01(A)-378-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Nasruddin bin Mohamad; First Respondent / Chief Executive Officer (maidam): Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif, Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu; Second Respondent / Disciplinary Appeal Board: Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib, Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu; Third Respondent / Employer: Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu (MAIDAM)
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 December 2021
Case Number
T-01(A)-378-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (employment/administrative) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision refusing relief set aside; termination quashed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Impropriety, Certiorari, Termination in Public Interest, Disciplinary Procedure, Statutory Preconditions for Dismissal, Medical Certification Requirement, Right to Livelihood
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Service Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Legitimate Expectation Procedural Impropriety Certiorari +5 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasruddin bin Mohamad

Appellant

Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif, Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu

First Respondent / Chief Executive Officer (maidam)

Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib, Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu

Second Respondent / Disciplinary Appeal Board

Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu (MAIDAM)

Third Respondent / Employer

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (employment/administrative) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether termination in the public interest was lawful given failure to obtain mandatory government medical officer certification under r.7(2)/(3) Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993
  2. 2 Whether procedural requirements of r.49 Regulations 1993 (report to Government; recommendation; satisfaction by Government) were complied with
  3. 3 Whether change of course from disciplinary dismissal to termination in public interest breached legitimate expectation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the respondents failed to comply with mandatory procedural and statutory safeguards: no government medical officer certification in the prescribed form existed at the material times; the disciplinary and r.49 procedures (report to Government and recommendation) were not followed; the third respondent’s change from dismissal proceedings to termination infringed the appellant’s legitimate expectation; and there was no proven lawful adoption/modification of Regulations 1993 under s.45, rendering the termination unlawful and subject to certiorari.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision refusing relief set aside; termination quashed

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the decision to terminate the appellant’s service by the third respondent
  • Order of certiorari quashing the decision to dismiss/reject the appellant’s appeal against termination