Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proportionality of punishment

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2025

MOHAMMAD HANIF BIN ADENAN 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-358-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-358-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Revocation of the first show cause letter was lawful because the 1993 Regulations do not prohibit revocation and no decision had been made on the applicant's earlier representations; the 2nd show cause letter was validly issued under the same regulatory scheme; the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's choice of punishment absent procedural illegality or breach of natural justice; no duty to give reasons arose on these facts; the judicial review application therefore fails and is dismissed.
12 Jun 2025

SHH CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) SOMASUNTHARAM A/L SHANMUGADASS

Citation

WA-25-220-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-220-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave, adduced no compelling evidence to overturn the Industrial Court's findings that the dismissal was procedurally flawed and that theft was unproven, found no error of law or fact in the IC Award, and dismissed the leave application with costs.
21 Oct 2024

muhammad taufiq ajmal bin jamaludin 1. ) kementerian dalam negeri, malaysia 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) KETUA POLIS PAHANG 4. ) Ketua Polis Negara 5. ) Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) 6. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

CB-25-11-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-25-11-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Police Disciplinary Board's dismissal decision was lawful: the s.6(3) restriction order dated 29.09.2022 remained valid and supported the disciplinary process (Mohd Faizal Haris); any irregularity in s.3 detention did not nullify the s.6 basis; the applicant was not denied natural justice as written representations suffice in disciplinary context (Tay Chai Huat); the court will not substitute its view on penalty; therefore the judicial review was dismissed with costs RM2,000.
9 Jan 2024

MD GHAZALI BIN ALI 1. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) MMC ENGINEERING GROUP BERHAD

Citation

JA-25-30-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-25-30-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court held the Industrial Court's award was irrational/perverse and procedurally improper: it failed to take into account relevant evidence (draft status of the commitment document, HR involvement, absence of signatures, absence of proven real damage), failed to consider proportionality of dismissal and failed to address apparent bias arising from COO's involvement; certiorari was granted to quash the award and the matter was remitted to the Industrial Court for reconsideration of relief (reinstatement or appropriate compensation).
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 Dec 2022

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF BIN SAAD 1. ) MOHD AMAR BIN MOHAJIN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-400-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-400-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the disciplinary process complied with the 1993 Regulations; suspension under s78(1) Police Act 1967 was lawful; the DNAA did not preclude disciplinary action because the criminal charges were different from the disciplinary charges; the applicant was afforded adequate opportunity to be heard by written representation in accordance with Art 135(2); and the dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct; accordingly the judicial review applications were dismissed.
7 Oct 2022

Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd 1. ) Suria Darma Bin Suwardi Resodinomo 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

PA-25-56-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-56-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the judicial review because the Industrial Court's decision was irrational and legally flawed: the Chairman failed to give proper consideration to the valid internal inquiry findings and witness evidence such that the Industrial Court's reinstatement orders could not stand; therefore the awards were quashed and the dismissals were upheld.
8 Sept 2022

MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN AHMAD 1. ) TPR NORAINI BINTI ROSLAN (PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SUBANG JAYA 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SUBANG JAYA 3. ) Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

BA-25-105-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-105-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to commence judicial review had been granted and applicant had been afforded the opportunity to be heard by written representation; appointment of an investigation committee was discretionary; facts showed prolonged indiscipline (124 days unrecorded attendance and 88 days late) and the disciplinary authority reasonably exercised its discretion to dismiss; application accordingly dismissed and costs awarded.
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.
3 Feb 2022

Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd 1. ) Syaiful Rizuan Bin Radzi 2. ) Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia

Citation

PA-25-8-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-25-8-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the Industrial Court had sufficient evidence to find the employee suffered a serious medical condition and correctly applied the doctrine of proportionality to conclude dismissal was disproportionate; the Industrial Court did not take irrelevant considerations nor omit relevant factors that would render its conclusion unreasonable, therefore its substitution of penalty and reinstatement with reduced back wages stands.