Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Investigation committee

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2023

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

Citation

BA-25-36-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-36-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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 an…
8 Nov 2023

SUHAI FANDI BIN RAMLI 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Negeri Kumpulan Pelaksana (No. 1) Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

Citation

CB-25-6-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-25-6-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No judicial review order because disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction and discretion: there were no conflicting facts necessitating an Investigation Committee; applicant's written representations and medical documents were considered; procedural fairness was not breached in a manner requiring intervention; dismissal was a permitted and not unreasonable sanction under the Pahang regulations.
30 Nov 2021

Mohd Jamaludin Bin Mahusin 1. ) Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

PA-25-76-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-76-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The disciplinary process complied with the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (Regulation 37); the applicant was served with charges and allowed to make written representation, he did not request documents or an oral hearing, the disciplinary authority properly considered his representation and exercised its discretion not to appoint an Investigation Committee, and there was no fundamental procedural irregularity warranting judicial interference.

Malaysia Case Law

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

SUHAI FANDI BIN RAMLI 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Negeri Kumpulan Pelaksana (No. 1) Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Pahang 2. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB PERKHIDMATAN AWAM 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Pahang

Mohd Jamaludin Bin Mahusin 1. ) Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia