Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary procedure

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

Lee Ee Chai Kansai Paint Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-04(A)-423-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-04(A)-423-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the disciplinary charge was fundamentally vague because it conflated theft (a dishonest act) with taking without permission (which may lack dishonesty); the Industrial Court permissibly analysed criminal theft elements for their constituent mental elements but applied the civil standard of proof and correctly found no dishonest intent; the High Court erred by substituting its factual inferences and failing to defer to the Industrial Court's assessment, therefore the Industrial Court award reinstating the employee must be restored.
27 Feb 2026

Mohamad Sukry bin Tamsuri 1. ) ACP Ng Siew Hiang 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to produce contemporaneous evidence that he attempted to obtain the requested documents and therefore cannot claim denial of documents; applicant did not exculpate himself by furnishing credible evidence in his written representation and therefore was not entitled to an oral hearing; disciplinary authority considered the representations and its decision to impose dismissal was not tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; application dismissed with costs.
19 Mar 2025

Farah Masyitah binti Nordin 1. ) Tan Sri Dr. Mazlan bin Yusoff (dinamakan di atas kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia) 2. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Malaysia 3. ) Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri Pera

Citation

AA-25-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The dismissal was set aside because the seven‑year delay without credible explanation, combined with affirmative acts by the employer (promotions, increments, national award), amounted to tacit condonation; material procedural defects (failure to disclose attendance records and to give reasons or notice of appeal) deprived the applicant of a fair hearing; and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate given mitigating circumstances — therefore the disciplinary decision was unlawful and unsustainable.
18 Dec 2024

Suresh Ramasamy Hong Leong Bank Berhad

Citation

WA-16A-67-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-16A-67-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the appellant intentionally doctored and misrepresented survey data presented to BITC, that the misrepresentation was prejudicial to the Bank's ability to assess its IT Security Awareness initiative, and that on balance of probabilities the dismissal for serious misconduct was justified and proportionate given the appellant's senior position and the banking industry's high standards; procedural defects did not invalidate the outcome as the Industrial Court cured them.
15 May 2024

SHAMSURI BIN SHAHADAN 1. ) DATO' INDERA KHAIRUL DZAIMEE BIN DAUD PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO. 1), JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA, PUTRAJAYA 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO. 1), JABATAN IMIGRESEN MALAYSIA, PU

Citation

JA-25-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the applicant failed to establish illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The show-cause notice complied with PPPAKT, the Disciplinary Authority lawfully considered written representations without holding an oral hearing or calling rebuttal evidence, the charges were sufficiently particularised and not time-barred, authentication of the security stamp supported the findings, and penalty decisions fall within the disciplinary authority's discretion; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed with costs.
21 Sept 2023

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

Citation

BA-25-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-19-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: the charges were clear and within Regulations 28 and 45 of the IRBM Disciplinary Regulations 2008, the applicant was afforded opportunity to be heard, absence was unauthorized, condonation was not established, and therefore no basis existed to quash or interfere with the disciplinary or appeal decisions.
23 May 2023

GRAY BIN SAMUIL 1. ) DIG TAN SRI RAZARUDDIN BIN HUSAIN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) DATO RAMLI BIN MOHAMMAD YUSOOF 4. ) ACP WAN MOHD ZAHARI BIN WAN BUSU 5. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) 6. ) Kerajaan Malays

Citation

CA-25-9-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-25-9-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court held that procedural requirements under Article 135(2) and the relevant regulations were satisfied by written representations, no inquiry or oral hearing was necessary, the evidence supported a finding that the applicant lied during a recorded investigation, dismissal was within the disciplinary authority's legitimate discretion and not disproportionate, and there was no obligation to separately communicate reasons; therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
7 Jun 2022

Thirunavukarasu A/l Angappan 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA 3. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN PENDIDIKAN KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA KPM 4. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN PENDIDIKAN SURUHANJAYA

Citation

AA-25-15-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-15-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

R3's failure to establish a Committee of Investigation to investigate the applicant's significant psychiatric condition rendered the disciplinary process illegal and irrational; consequently both R3 and R4 decisions were quashed and mandamus granted to reinstate the applicant without loss of qualifications and benefits.
16 Dec 2021

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

Citation

T-01(A)-378-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

T-01(A)-378-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

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.
30 Nov 2021

Khairul Azizi Bin Mat Saad 1. ) Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador 2. ) Polis DiRaja Malaysia 3. ) Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

PA-25-6-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-6-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Disciplinary Authority complied with the 1993 Regulations (as amended) by issuing charges and considering the applicant's written representation under Regulation 37; the applicant did not request documents or an oral hearing and his bare after‑the‑fact assertions lacked contemporaneous evidence; courts are limited to reviewing procedural fairness and must not substitute the disciplinary authority's discretion on findings or penalty, therefore the dismissal was lawful.