NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH 1. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. ) JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI 4. ) KETUA

BA-25-19-03/2022 Kand. 44 09/11/2023 15:28:21 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: BA-25-19-03/2022 Dalam perkara mengenai surat bertarikh 14.7.2020 daripada Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia kepada Noor Azam bin Salleh berkenaan Tindakan Tatatertib Dengan Tujuan Buang Kerja Atau Turun Pangkat; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Keputusan Tindakan Tatatertib oleh Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bertarikh 29.6.2021 dan dinyatakan di dalam surat bertarikh 30.6.2021; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Keputusan Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bertarikh 15.12.2021 dan dinyatakan di dalam surat bertarikh 21.12.2021; Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Peraturan- Peraturan 7(2)(g), 28, 40 dan 45(g) Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008; 1 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Dan Dalam perkara mengenai Perintah Am 14(a), 14A, 15 hingga 18, Bab C, Perintah- Perintah Am; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 53, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; Dan Dalam perkara Aturan 92 Kaedah 4, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. ANTARA NOOR AZAM BIN SALLEH (No. K/P: 740404-10-5401) …PEMOHON DAN 1. JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB 1, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 2. JAWATANKUASA RAYUAN TATATERTIB, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI 4. KETUA PERKHIDMATAN JABATAN PENGURUSAN INSAN, LEMBAGA HASIL DALAM NEGERI …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN 2 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal JUDGMENT [1] This is an application by the applicant, Noor Azam bin Salleh for judicial review under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 1) challenging the decision of the first respondent dated 29.6.2021 to dismiss the applicant from his employment and the decision of the second respondent dated 15.12.2021 which affirmed the decision of the first respondent and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Reliefs Sought [2] The reliefs sought by the applicant in the present case are as follows: “(a) satu perintah Certiorari untuk membatalkan keputusan Responden Pertama bertarikh 29.6.2021 yang dinyatakan dalam surat daripada Responden Pertama kepada Pemohon yang bertarikh 30.6.2021 dimana Pemohon didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan ke atasnya dan pekerjaan Pemohon selaku Penolong Eksekutif Hasil di Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat di Menara Hasil, Cyberjaya ditamatkan berkuatkuasa pada 1.7.2021 mengikut Peraturan 45(g), Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008, yang dibuat secara tidak adil, tidak munasabah dan/atau tidak setimpal; (b) satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan keputusan Responden Kedua bertarikh 15.12.2021 yang dinyatakan dalam surat daripada Responden Kedua kepada 3 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pemohon yang bertarikh 21.12.2021, yang dimaklumkan kepada Pemohon pada 28.12.2021, dimana Responden Kedua telah menolak rayuan Pemohon terhadap keputusan Responden Pertama Pemohon dan mengesahkan keputusan Responden Pertama, secara tidak adil dan/atau tidak munasabah; (c) selanjutnya satu perintah Deklarasi dan/atau Mandamus bahawa Pemohon dikembalikan semula ke jawatan terakhirnya sebagai Penolong Eksekutif Hasil tanpa kehilangan pangkat, kenaikan gaji, gaji, emolumen dan lain-lain manfaat; (d) Perintah-perintah sampingan dan berbangkit dari perintah Certiorari/Deklarasi/Mandamus tersebut seperti berikut:- (i) suatu siasatan untuk menentukan tunggakan gaji termasuk tunggakan kenaikan gaji, emolumen, elaunelaun dan faedahfaedah lain yang Pemohon sepatutnya menerima dari tarikh Pemohon dibuang kerja (1.7.2021) sehingga penyelesaian penuh; (ii) faedah pada kadar 5% setahun terhadap jumlah keseluruhan wang tertunggak dari tarikh Pemohon dibuang kerja (1.7.2021) sehingga penyelesaian penuh; (e) Gantirugi pemecatan salah; (f) Selanjutnya dan/atau secara alternatif, gantirugi am dan/atau gantirugi teruk dan/atau gantirugi teladan dan/atau gantirugi punitif kerana pihak Responden- Responden serta ejen/kakitangan Responden Ketiga telah bersikap sambal lewa serta 'mala fide' dalam memulakan prosiding tatatertib dari awal dengan niat semata-mata untuk membuang kerja Pemohon yang mana telah 4 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mengakibatkan Pemohon mengalami tekanan emosi dan psikologi yang begitu teruk apabila menghadapi keluarga, rakan-rakan dan masyarakat serta terpaksa mengalami kesedihan dan kedukacitaan (severe shock and mental anguish) setiap hari sehingga kini di atas keputusan pembuangan kerjanya; (g) lain-lain relif dan/atau perintah yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini fikirkan adil dan saksama.” Grounds for Judicial Review [3] The applicant set out the following grounds in support of this application for judicial review: (i) whether there are defects in the notes of proceedings of the first respondent/disciplinary committee; (ii) whether there is non-compliance and/or procedural impropriety in dismissing the applicant; (iii) whether the dismissal sentence on the applicant is irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate to the offense committed and has been contrary to the principle of natural justice; (iv) whether there is forgiveness (“condonation”) and if so, the disciplinary action of dismissal has been contrary to the principle of “condonation”; and (v) whether the applicant is eligible for the reliefs sought in this judicial review. 5 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Factual Background [4] The facts of this case are gleaned from the submissions and affidavits filed by parties. On 25.11.2019, a Laporan Pelanggaran Tatakelakuan-Menerima Gaji Bersih Di Bawah 40% Dan Tidak Hadir Bertugas Tanpa Cuti Atau Tanpa Kebenaran Atau Tanpa Sebab Munasabah was submitted to the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib (Ibu Pejabat), Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia from the Deputy Director of the Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia regarding the code of conduct of the applicant. The applicant was found to have violated the code of conduct as follows: i. failure to submit a written response to the letter dated 21.8.2019 within the stipulated period even though a reminder via email was issued to the applicant on 05.09.2019; ii. absent from work for thirty-three (33) days during specific dates in 2018 and 2019, without proper authorization or a valid reason; iii. a show cause memo concerning the aforementioned absence was delivered to the applicant, and an email reminder requesting a written response was sent as well which was not furnished by a written reply within the specified timeframe; and iv. under Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 can be deemed as behaving irresponsibly and disobeying the order, which is a violation of the code of conduct under Regulation 7(2)(g) and 7(2)(i) of the same Regulations. 6 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [5] On 30.01.2020, a submission was made, requesting the Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib (lbu Pejabat) to assess and decide whether the alleged disciplinary violation warrants either dismissal, demotion, or a milder form of punishment as outlined in Regulation 38 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008. [6] On 03.02.2020, the Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib lbu Pejabat decided that the breach of discipline by the applicant, is of the type that should be subject to dismissal work or demotion under Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008. The actions of the applicant contravene the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 can be considered as exhibiting dishonesty, lack of trustworthiness, and irresponsibility, which infringe upon the code of conduct as stipulated in Regulation 7(2)(f) and (g) of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008. [7] On 13.07.2020, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2020 was convened and the Chairman agreed that there is a prima facie case against the applicant, as he did not show up for duty without leave or without first obtaining permission or without reasonable cause for thirty- three (33) days on certain dates in 2018 and 2019. [8] On 14.07.2020, the first respondent sent a letter of charge sheet with the purpose of dismissal or demotion to the applicant where a report was received by the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 which states that the applicant had violated the code of conduct which allows disciplinary action to be taken against the applicant. The decision 7 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal was notified to the applicant. The applicant was given the opportunity of being heard and to send a representation under Regulation 37 Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008. [9] On 24.07.2020, the applicant sent a representation against the Surat Pertuduhan bagi Tindakan Tatatertib Dengan Tujuan Buang Kerja Atau Turun Pangkat. [10] On 27.10.2020, JPI’s Officer has submitted a “Surat Maklum Balas Berhubung Surat Representasi Pemohon” to the Chairman of Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1. [11] On 29.06.2021, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2021 was held to decide on the applicant’s case which found the applicant guilty and subject to the disciplinary punishment of dismissal effective 01.07.2021. [12] The applicant, on 14.7.2021 submitted a letter of appeal to the Chairman of the Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia. [13] On 15.12.2021, Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia bil. 1 tahun 2021 had convened to consider the appeal of the applicant and decided to confirm and uphold the dismissal sentence made by Jawatankuasa Tatatertib. [14] On 21.12.2021, the second respondent sent a decision letter of the Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib LHDNM for the applicant’s appeal. 8 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [15] The applicant filed the judicial review application under Order 53 of the Rule of Court 2012 on 15.03.2022 seeking for certiorari to quash the first and second respondent’s decisions and order for mandamus because according to the applicant, the first and second respondent's decisions was illegal, void, unlawful and/or in excess of authority, and had been irrational and/ or unreasonable. Principles relating to Judicial Review [16] The principles surrounding the application for judicial review are trite. The court hearing an application for judicial review are allowed to scrutinize not only the decision making process but also for substance, as to whether they are tainted by illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, procedural impropriety and also proportionality as per the case of R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145 as follows: “In this context, it is useful to note how Lord Diplock (at pp 410– 411) defined the three grounds of review, to wit, (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is how he put it: By 'illegality' as a ground for Judicial Review I mean that the decision maker must understand directly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of a dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exerciseable. By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury 9 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Corp [1948] 1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the courts' exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though undefinable mistake of law by the decision maker. 'Irrationality' by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by Judicial Review. I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failing to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to Judicial Review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. Lord Diplock also mentioned 'proportionality' as a possible fourth ground of review which called for development.” 10 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [17] The Federal Court in Ranjit Kaur a/p S Gopal Singh v. Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 6 MLJ 1 stated the following: “[16] The Rama Chandran decision has been regarded or interpreted as giving the reviewing court a license to review without restrain decisions for substance even when the said decision is based on finding of facts. However, post Rama Chandran cases have applied some brakes to the courts’ liberal approach in Rama Chandran. The Federal Court in the case of Kumpulan Perangsang Selangor Bhd v. Zaid Noh [1997] 1 MLJ 789; [1997] 2 CLJ 11 after affirming the Rama Chandran decision held that there may be cases in which for reason of public policy, national interest, public safety or national security the principle in Rama Chandran may be wholly inappropriate. [17] The Federal Court, in Petroliam National Bhd v. Nik Ramli Nik Hassan [2004] 2 MLJ 288; [2003] 4 CLJ 625, again held that the reviewing court may scrutinise a decision on its merits but only in the most appropriate of cases and not every case is amenable to the Rama Chandran approach. Further, it was held that a reviewing judge ought not to disturb findings of the Industrial Court unless they were grounded on illegality or plain irrationality, even where the reviewing judge might not have come to the same conclusion.” [18] Founded on these principles, this court will now proceed to analyse the grounds presented by the applicant in this application for judicial review. 11 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Preliminary Objection [19] The respondents raised preliminary objections. The preliminary objections are that the application for judicial review is out of time. According to the respondent the timeliness of adhering to the specified rules is of paramount importance, as it directly affects the court's jurisdiction to entertain the judicial review application. Given that the application was filed more than 90 days after the date of the first respondent’s decision, the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to consider the application for judicial review against the first respondent. Consequently, the remedy sought by the applicant in this application is legally inadequate and should be rejected by this court. [See: Abdul Rahman bin Abdullah Munir & Ors v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 704] [20] The second objection by the respondent is that the decisions of the third and fourth respondents are not the decisions disputed in this application. The reliefs requested by the applicant in enclosure 1, there is no relief requested that disputes or cancels the decision made by fourth respondent. Further, the respondents argue that no decision has been made by the third respondent in this case. Therefore, it was argued by the respondent that all accusations against the third and fourth respondents are not material for this judicial review application. [21] The respondent however, did not deny that the application for judicial review was filed within three (3) months from the date of the decision of the second respondent. Moreover, the respondent cited the case of Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Alcatel Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 1 MLJ 563 which involves an 12 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal appeal on the assessment of tax. This case can be distinguished from Alcatel (supra) as this case involves disciplinary proceedings. [22] Pertaining to the objection that the third and fourth respondent are not the decisions disputed in this application, this court finds the third respondent is the employer of the applicant and the fourth respondent is the applicant’s head of department. As the head of department, the fourth respondent would have knowledge and reported the applicant’s absenteeism. The third respondent, as the employer of the applicant, would have to know about the proceedings against the applicant. [23] For the reasons stated, this court considered the preliminary objections raised and dismissed the said objections. Analysis and Findings (i) Whether there is a defect in the charges and proceedings of the first respondent/disciplinary committee 1 [24] According to the applicant, the charge of “tidak hadir tanpa cuti atau terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran atau tanpa sebab yang munasabah” against the applicant is not true and there is a defect in the charge. This is because, according to the applicant, his absence is not under the category which allow for a proceeding for dismissal or demotion. It was further submitted that the Laporan Pelanggaran Tatakelakuan dated 25.11.2019 is untrue and misrepresented. The applicant argued that a prima facie case was decided by the first respondent based on the report of the fourth 13 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal respondent which is not true and without material facts of the case and without the applicant’s complete documents. [25] In this regard, this court perused Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008, which reads: “Disciplinary action for absence without leave 28. An employee’s absence from duty without leave or without prior permission or without reasonable cause shall render him liable to disciplinary action.” [26] Whereas, regulation 45 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 provides: “Types of disciplinary punishments 45. If an employee is found guilty of a disciplinary offence, any one or any combination of two or more of the following punishments, depending upon the seriousness of the offence, may be imposed on the employee: (a) warning; (b) fine; (c) forfeiture of emoluments; (d) deferment of salary movement; (e) reduction of salary; (f) reduction in rank; or (g) dismissal.” 14 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [27] Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 explicitly states that an employee’s unauthorized absence from work makes them subject to disciplinary measures. If an employee is subsequently found to have committed a disciplinary offence, they may face disciplinary sanctions under Regulation 45 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008, which could include the penalty of dismissal. [28] In the view of this court, the provisions of regulation 28 and 45 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 is clear. The punishment for dismissal is not limited to cases of “absent without leave and cannot be traced”. This is clearly not stated in the said regulations and therefore this court is of the view this argument by the applicant is without merit. [29] Moreover, authorities have decided that the ordinary meaning of the words in a statute should be given. The Federal Court in Fairise Odyssey (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 281, the court held: “[58] It is trite that the duty of the court is limited to interpreting the words used by the Legislature and it has no power to fill the gaps disclosed. To do so would be to usurp the function of the Legislature…” [30] In Tebin bin Mustapa (as administrator of the estate of Hj Mostapa bin Asan, deceased) v. Hulba-Danyal bin Balia & Anor (as joint administrator of the estate of Balia bin Munir, deceased) [2020] 4 MLJ 721, the Federal Court held: 15 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “[30] … Therefore in construing any statute, the court will look at the words in the statute and apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the statute.” [31] For this reason, this court is satisfied that the there is no defect in the charges and proceedings of the first respondent. This court is satisfied this ground is without merit. (ii) Whether there is non-compliance and/or procedural impropriety in dismissing the applicant [32] The applicant submitted there was procedural non-compliance and/or impropriety in dismissing the applicant. The applicant argued that there was a Defective Show Cause Letter, the first respondent and second respondent failed to consider the material facts in the applicant’s Letter of Representation, the admission that there are only 4 days without notification of leave, that the applicant’s reason for refusing to sign the Performance Progress Plan and that the reason that the applicant failed to apply for leave in the system was never raised to the applicant in the Charge Sheet. [33] The applicant’s complaint was that the applicant was deprived of a reasonable right to be heard on account of the show cause letter/charges making up the disciplinary offences being vague or unclear. [34] In order to consider this issue, this court perused the show cause letter/charges against the applicant. For the sake of completeness, the show cause memo dated 20.08.2019 is reproduced below: 16 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “2. Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran, Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata cuti bagi Bulan Jun dan Julai 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti dan tanpa sebab yang munasabah selama sepuluh (10) hari bagi tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut… 3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.” [35] The show cause memo dated 25.09.2019 stated as follows: “2. Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran, Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata cuti bagi Bulan Ogas 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama tiga (3) hari bagi tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut… 3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.” 17 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [36] The show cause memo dated 11.10.2019 states: “2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran, Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata cuti pada tahun 2018, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti atau tanpa terlebih dahulu mendapat kebenaran atau tanpa sebab yang munasabah seperti berikut… 3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.” [Emphasis added] [37] The show cause memo dated 31.10.2019 is reproduced below: “2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran, Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata cuti bagi Bulan Oktober 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama empat (4) hari bagi tarikh-tarikh seperti berikut… 3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.” [Emphasis added] [38] The show cause memo dated 12.11.2019 states as follows: 18 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “2, Dimaklumkan bahawa, semakan oleh Unit Pentadbiran, Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan ke atas rekod kehadiran dan penyata cuti bagi Bulan Mei 2019, mendapati tuan tidak hadir bertugas tanpa kelayakan cuti selama satu (1) hari bagi tarikh seperti berikut… 3. Sehubungan itu, tuan adalah dikehendaki untuk memberikan penjelasan atas ketidakhadiran tuan seperti diperenggan 2 dalam tempoh tiga (3) hari bekerja dari tarikh memo ini diserahkan. Kegagalan untuk mengemukakan maklum balas ini akan menyebabkan tindakan tatatertib boleh diambil ke atas tuan.” [Emphasis added] [39] The Charge Sheet dated 14.07.2020 reads as follows: “Pertuduhan Bahawa tuan, Encik Noor Azam Bin Salleh, No. KIP: 740404-1 0- 5401, Penolong Eksekutif Hasil, semasa bertugas di Jabatan Pengurusan lnsan, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia, telah didapati tidak hadir bertugas tanpa cuti atau tanpa kebenaran terlebih dahulu atau tanpa sebab yang munasabah sebanyak 33 hari pada tarikh-tarikh tertentu pada tahun 2018 dan 2019 seperti berikut… Perbuatan tuan telah melanggar Peraturan 28, Peraturan- Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008 dan boleh diertikan sebagai tidak bertanggungjawab iaitu melanggar tatakelakuan di bawah Peraturan 7(2)(g), Peraturan- Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008 yang seperti berikut: "7(2) Seseorang pekerja tidak boleh – 19 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (g) tidak bertanggungjawab; 3. Jika tuan didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan tersebut, tuan boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 45, Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008. 4. Mengikut Peraturan 40, Peraturan-Peraturan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia 2008, tuan adalah diminta untuk membuat satu representasi secara bertulis yang mengandungi alasan-alasan yang hendak digunakan untuk membebaskan diri tuan. Representasi tersebut hendaklah dikemukakan kepada Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 melalui Pengarah Jabatan Teknologi Maklumat, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia dalam tempoh 21 hari dari tarikh tuan menerima surat ini. Sekiranya tuan tidak membuat apa-apa representasi dalam tempoh masa yang ditetapkan, tuan dianggap sebagai tidak hendak membela diri dan perkara ini akan terus diputuskan oleh Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang sedia ada sahaja.” [Emphasis added] [40] At no point did the applicant raise concerns with the disciplinary board regarding the alleged vagueness or lack of clarity in the disciplinary charges brought against them. The way these charges were articulated leaves no room for doubt that the applicant understood the case they were facing, and there is no other plausible interpretation of their nature. In fact, the applicant’s written responses aimed at clearing their name demonstrated a clear and thorough understanding of the specific disciplinary offenses as they were presented. 20 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [41] In this particular case, the chairman of the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib received a report detailing the disciplinary violations committed by the applicant. In accordance with their responsibilities under Regulation 38 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008, they assessed that the nature of the disciplinary offense warranted either dismissal or a reduction in rank, as specified in Regulation 45 of the same regulations. Subsequently, the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib took over the disciplinary process, reviewing the report and determining whether a prima facie case could be established based on the documents contained in the report. [42] If a prima facie case is established, one or more charges are formulated, outlining the factual details of the alleged disciplinary offense committed by the officer, along with the reasons for the proposed dismissal or rank reduction. These charges are then transmitted to the officer in the form of a document called “Surat Pertuduhan”. Within a specified timeframe, typically 21 days from the receipt of the Surat Pertuduhan, the officer is notified that they must submit a written representation outlining the grounds on which they seek to clear their name. This process is in accordance with Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 which, in the view of this court, accords the applicant an opportunity to be heard. [See: Ghazi Mohd Sawi v. Mohd Haniff Omar, Ketua Polis Negara, Malaysia & Anor [1994] 2 CLJ 333; Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang & Anor v. Utra Badi K Perumal [2001] 2 CLJ 525; Muhammad Farid bin Muntalib v. Tan Sri Dato' Sri Khalid bin Abu 21 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Bakar, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman & Ors [2019] 1 MLJ 604] [43] Regulation 40 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 explicitly outlines the disciplinary procedure concerning dismissal and rank reduction, and this procedure is already detailed in the Charge Sheet. [44] In the view of this court, the show cause memos are clear and unambiguous. The written documentation precisely lays out the reasons and details comprising the disciplinary offense, ensuring that the applicant is fully aware of the nature of the case against them and is provided with a fair opportunity to present their defense. [45] Exhibit A 14 in Enclosure 23 is the Minit Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1 Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021. From this Exhibit A 14 of Enclosure 23, it can been seen that the first respondent has taken consideration of all the material facts in the Applicant's Letter of Representation. [46] This court is also of the view the second respondent had considered all the material facts in the Applicant’s Appeal Letter. This can be clearly seen in Enclosure 24, Exhibit A-17, page 297- 298, Minit Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021. [47] Pertaining to the applicant’s absence from work, the respondents did not contest the applicant's absence from work for four days without providing prior notice of leave, nor did they question the validity of the applicant’s medical records and sick leave certificates. 22 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [48] It is observed that the applicant’s absence from duty for 33 days was not supported by any leave entitlement or a valid reason. According to the applicant, he had given the fourth respondent notification of leave. However, this does not mean the applicant is automatically granted the right to take such leave. The facts before this court is that the applicant had no leave entitlement during that period. [49] Therefore, the applicant’s absence is, in actual fact, unauthorized. Regulation 28 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Disciplinary Regulations 2008 states that this is subject to disciplinary action. This court therefore is satisfied this ground is baseless. (iii) Whether the dismissal sentence on the applicant is irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate to the offense committed and has been contrary to the principle of natural justice [50] With regard to the sentence imposed on the applicant, the applicant contends that the punishment of dismissal imposed against him was excessive. The Federal Court in Ng Hock Cheng v. Pengarah Am Penjara & Ors [1 998] 1 CLJ 405 stated: “It cannot be denied further that the disciplining of a public officer by his department head is part of the function of the executive branch of the government and any usurpation by a court will be viewed with something very much more than disfavour even though the Judiciary is the judicial branch of the government as well as an institution which belongs to the people. To repeat; a court intervenes only on the nature and manner of accusation against a public officer as distinct from a consequential punishment as explained above. 23 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Just like a professional body being the best tribunal to judge the seriousness of misconduct of its members, in a similar vein, an employer, including a government, is the best person to judge similarly the seriousness of misconduct of an employee.” [51] It is this court’s view that the Jawatankuasa Tatatertib is regarded as the most suitable tribunal for evaluating the gravity of its members' misconduct. However, it is not within the purview of this court to determine whether the appropriate sanction should be a dismissal or a milder penalty such as a reduction in rank. Given the circumstances, the argument raised by the applicant lacks merit and contradicts established legal precedent. (iv) Whether there is forgiveness (“condonation”) and if so, the disciplinary action of dismissal has been contrary to the principle of “condonation” [52] The applicant in his submission raised the issue of condonation. However, this issue was raised by the applicant only in his submission. This issue was not pleaded by the applicant in the statement. [53] In this regard, it is trite that the parties are bound by their pleadings. The court is not entitled to decide a matter that is not pleaded. [54] See: RHB Bank Bhd (substituting Kwong Yik Bank Bhd) v. Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188; Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd & Ors v. Shencourt Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 4 MLJ 619] 24 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [55] Was there delay in the disciplinary proceedings which would amount to condonation? The whole event starting from the point of the disciplinary offence committed by the applicant to the disciplinary and disciplinary appeal proceeding, concluded in 2 years and 4 months. At that time or during that period, the Covid-19 pandemic hit globally and the Malaysian Movement Control Order in 2020 and 2021. [56] In Public Services Commission Malaysia & Anor v. Vickneswary a/p RM Santhivelu (substituting M Senthivelu a/l R Marimuthu, deceased) [2008] 6 MLJ 1, the court stated: “[40] Also again condonation was not pleaded. However, although there was a delay between the time the police completed their investigation and the time when the show cause letter was issued, there was nothing to indicate that the disciplinary authority intended to condone the wrongs committed by the deceased. In any case, the delay was because the police was investigating the case and the disciplinary authority cannot be said to have condoned the acts of the deceased.” [57] Having considered the facts of this case particularly as the country was engulfed in Covid-19 and restriction in movement, this court is of the considered view there is no delay on the part of the respondents. It follows therefore, there is no condonation as alleged by the applicant. 25 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (v) Whether the applicant is eligible for the reliefs sought in this judicial review [58] The applicant further contended that all the applicant’s statements in this judicial review to challenge the decision made by the first respondent and the second respondent are not denied by the two respondents because there is no affidavit in reply from the two respondents. [59] The respondents submit that all the applicant’s statements in this judicial review to challenge the decision made by the first respondent and the second respondent are actively challenged and rebutted by the respondents’ deponents, Zahari Ali (the fourth respondent himself) and Siti Zulaikha Badrul Hisam. [60] Zahari Ali, the fourth respondent, is the duly appointed individual authorized to validate the affidavit on behalf of all the respondents. He holds the position of Director within the Department of Human Resource Management, which is responsible for overseeing and managing the employment and service records of all employees at the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (“IRBM”). The facts presented in the respondent's affidavit in reply are firmly within the fourth respondent's awareness and are either derived from the applicant's documents or are part of the records held by IRBM, which the fourth respondent has complete access to. [61] The fourth respondent also, being the secretary of the first respondent, Jawatankuasa Tatatertib 1, has the full knowledge of the disciplinary proceeding taken against the applicant. The fourth respondent also is the Head of Department of officers from the Jabatan Pengurusan Insan, in which his officers being part of the 26 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal committee in the Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Rayuan Tatatertib Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Bil 1/2021, has full access to the minute of the disciplinary appeal proceedings. [62] Siti Zulaikha binti Badrul Hisam, being the Admin Care Officer (ACO), is the direct supervisor of the applicant. This court is satisfied that Siti Zulaikha and Zahari Ali had access to the information and are persons who is best to aver the affidavits. Conclusion [63] For the abovementioned reasons, this court is satisfied there I no illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural impropriety which would warrant this court to allow this application for judicial review. This court therefore dismisses this application for judicial review with no order as to costs. Date: 09 November 2023 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam 27 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Counsel: For The Applicant: Kartini Yusoff Tetuan Jimmy M.P. Ng & Associates Advocates & Solicitors No. 30-2, Jalan Temenggung 17/9, 43200 Bandar Mahkota Cheras, Selangor. jimmycheras@gmail.com +6 03 9080 4973 For the Respondent: Ahmad Isyak Mohd Hassan Ibu Pejabat Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia, Jabatan Rayuan Khas, Menara Hasil, Aras 16, Persiaran Rimba Permai, Cyber 8, 63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor. +6 03 8886 8575 28 S/NBA-25-19-03/2022 HGKRSMY6wEGdKeIZthsKeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal