SAKTHI DEVI A/P MUNIANDY @ SEGARAN 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN 3. ) KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

SAKTHI DEVI A/P MUNIANDY @ SEGARAN 1. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN PELAJARAN 3. ) KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

The court held the applicants failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the Disciplinary Appeal Board's decision; transfer orders are not reviewable and failure to report to the transferred schools constituted insubordination; the Appeal Board acted within Regulations 14 and 15 by deciding on the merits of the appeals based on the record; no mandatory requirement for an investigation committee arose and allegations of conspiracy, fiduciary breach, whistle‑blower protection and legitimate expectation lacked evidential basis; therefore certiorari was not warranted and the applications were dismissed.

Citation
BA-25-36-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Sakthi Devi A/P Muniandy; Applicant: Letchumy A/P Subramaniam; First Respondent: Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan; Second Respondent: Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran Malaysia; Third Respondent: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia; Fourth Respondent: Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 November 2023
Case Number
BA-25-36-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Transfer Orders, Insubordination, Procedural Impropriety, Legitimate Expectation, Certiorari, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Investigation Committee
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Law Education Law Judicial Review Disciplinary Proceedings Transfer Orders Insubordination +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakthi Devi A/P Muniandy

Applicant

Letchumy A/P Subramaniam

Applicant

Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Pendidikan

First Respondent

Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran Malaysia

Second Respondent

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia

Third Respondent

Kerajaan Malaysia

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's decision rejecting the applicants' appeals was tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety
  2. 2 Whether transfer orders issued to civil servants are reviewable by the courts
  3. 3 Whether failure to report to a transferred post constitutes insubordination

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the applicants failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the Disciplinary Appeal Board's decision; transfer orders are not reviewable and failure to report to the transferred schools constituted insubordination; the Appeal Board acted within Regulations 14 and 15 by deciding on the merits of the appeals based on the record; no mandatory requirement for an investigation committee arose and allegations of conspiracy, fiduciary breach, whistle‑blower protection and legitimate expectation lacked evidential basis; therefore certiorari was not warranted and the applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review applications dismissed
  • No order as to costs