SAIFUL BAHARI BIN YUNUS 1. ) XXXX 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

SAIFUL BAHARI BIN YUNUS 1. ) XXXX 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

The Court held the dismissal was lawful: the disciplinary decision‑making complied with constitutional and regulatory requirements, Art 135(2)(d) applied because of the Detention/Restriction Order under the DD(SPM)A and therefore ousted the right to be heard and mitigation in disciplinary proceedings; the disciplinary authority properly exercised its discretion under the Regulations and there was no procedural impropriety warranting interference.

Citation
P-01(A)-203-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Saiful Bahari Bin Yunus; 1st Respondent: Dato' Jamil Bin Rakon (Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis); 2nd Respondent: Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis; 3rd Respondent: Polis Di Raja Malaysia; 4th Respondent: Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 March 2023
Case Number
P-01(A)-203-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Judicial Review of Disciplinary Dismissal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Appellate Stage)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Preventive Detention, Disciplinary Dismissal, Right to Appeal Under Constitution, Res Judicata
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Employment / Disciplinary Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Preventive Detention Disciplinary Dismissal Right to Appeal Under Constitution +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saiful Bahari Bin Yunus

Appellant

Dato' Jamil Bin Rakon (Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis)

1st Respondent

Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis

2nd Respondent

Polis Di Raja Malaysia

3rd Respondent

Kerajaan Malaysia

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Judicial Review of Disciplinary Dismissal / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Appellate Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dismissal was tainted by denial of right to appeal under Art 144(5A)
  2. 2 Whether Art 135(2)(d) ousted the Appellant's opportunity to be heard due to detention/restriction order
  3. 3 Whether Appellant was denied a right to plead in mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the dismissal was lawful: the disciplinary decision‑making complied with constitutional and regulatory requirements, Art 135(2)(d) applied because of the Detention/Restriction Order under the DD(SPM)A and therefore ousted the right to be heard and mitigation in disciplinary proceedings; the disciplinary authority properly exercised its discretion under the Regulations and there was no procedural impropriety warranting interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs by the Court of Appeal