Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary proceedings

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2026

ROSLI BIN MOHAMAD 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO.1) JABATAN PENJARA MALAYSIA 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 4. ) Jabatan Penjara Malaysia (JPM)

Citation

JB-25-8-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-25-8-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applicant failed to prove illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: he did not request an oral hearing, his written representation was considered, there was no duty to provide detailed reasons in the circumstances, and the disciplinary authority was entitled to determine the appropriate punishment; accordingly the judicial review is dismissed.
16 Feb 2026

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohamad Sufian Bin Abdul Halim

Citation

W-01(A)-336-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-336-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred: the 1993 Regulations (Reg 37 et seq.) were complied with, there is no statutory or constitutional duty to provide detailed reasons for disciplinary findings or punishment beyond the procedural opportunity to make written representations under Article 135(2), Article 5(1) does not create a freestanding right to continue in public service, and absent a fundamental procedural defect the disciplinary decisions were not amenable to being quashed; accordingly the appeals were allowed and High Court orders set aside.
16 Feb 2026

1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia Mohd Idzuddin Bin Mazli

Citation

W-01(A)-326-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-326-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeals and held the High Court erred in quashing the disciplinary decisions solely for lack of reasons: the 1993 Regulations and Article 135(2) supply the procedural safeguards, there is no constitutional right under Article 5(1) to continue in public service that imposes an additional duty to give reasons, the disciplinary process complied with the Regulations, and absent a fundamental procedural defect the court will not intervene in the disciplinary authority's findings or choice of punishment.
3 Feb 2026

MOHAMMAD IZZUDDIN BIN ZULKIFLY 1. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA 3. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-390-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-390-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the disciplinary process complied with the 1993 Regulations and constitutional provisions; an order of restriction permits initiation and determination of departmental disciplinary proceedings even while its legality is judicially challenged, R1 and R2 acted within their constitutional and delegated powers, relevant mitigating factors were considered and the dismissal was not Wednesbury-unreasonable; unpleaded grounds were barred and R1 was functus officio at the point of decision so could not rescind it.
19 Jan 2026

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Pengurusan (No.2), Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan 2. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-209-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-209-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the disciplinary processes were lawful: the Show Cause Letters correctly stated a prima facie case and did not predetermine guilt; omissions alleged (documents, delay, inclusion of non-working days) did not amount to procedural unfairness; no statutory duty to allow separate mitigation or to give reasons arose; DAB lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal after the applicant’s dismissal; accordingly both judicial review applications were dismissed.
19 Jan 2026

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the applicant failed to establish illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: the PSC show cause was properly particularised and premised on a prima facie case, not the JPJ decision; alleged predetermination was misconstrued; inclusion of weekends/public holidays did not invalidate the charge; no duty arose to furnish documents absent a request; the delay was not inordinate and delay alone does not amount to condonation; mitigation and an express duty to give reasons are not mandated by the 1993 Regulations in the circumstances; proportionality of punishment is for the…
8 Jan 2026

HOW CHEE HONG 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP BENG FATT 4. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA

Citation

W-02(A)-60-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-60-01/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal found no appealable error: the Disciplinary Board lawfully reconstituted the Disciplinary Committee and the reconstituted DC commenced its inquiry within the one‑month period required by section 103B(1) LPA; the appellant's Originating Summons was premature and an abuse of process because statutory objection and appeal mechanisms had not been exhausted and there was no established prejudice warranting interlocutory judicial intervention; consequently the High Court decision dismissing the OS was affirmed.
12 Dec 2025

AZMI BIN OSMAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA 4. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 5. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 6. ) Pengarah Jabatan

Citation

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under s10 the applicant's service was deemed extended to the date of conviction and under s21 his conviction disentitled him to pension; the disciplinary proceedings' non-completion was irrelevant because conviction removed entitlement and the disciplinary authority lost jurisdiction on retirement; mandamus could not compel a discretionary grant by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, so judicial review failed and the application was dismissed.
24 Nov 2025

MANIMARAN A/L VALAKRISHNAN 1. ) RAVIVARMA A/L SHANMUGAM 2. ) THAVANESAN A/L PANCHALINGAM 3. ) THIRUCHELVAM A/L SUBRAMANIAM 4. ) NIMELAN A/L KADIRA VELU 5. ) NANDA KUMARI A/P MUTHU 6. ) BASKARAN NAIR A/L CHINDAN NAIR 7. ) MAHENDRAN A/L T. SI

Citation

NA-22NCvC-32-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-22NCvC-32-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that the suspensions were valid because the disciplinary committee hearings were properly constituted and Plaintiff received notice but elected not to attend or properly pursue remedies (such as an EGM within 60 days); prior committee minutes purporting to invalidate suspensions were tainted by bias because Plaintiff, as President, chaired the meetings; and expulsion under Clause 5.2 was valid given the criminal conviction and the Club’s need to protect its public reputation.
23 Oct 2025

DR. GEOFFREY ALAN WILLIAMS 1. ) DR TIKFU GEE 2. ) MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA

Citation

W-01(IM)-458-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)-458-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed because appellant, as a failed complainant, lacked locus standi and no disciplinary order was made against him so Part IV did not confer a right of appeal; additionally the saving/transitional provision meant the repeal of s31(2) did not operate retrospectively for alleged misconduct in 2015, preserving finality of the High Court decision.