Muhammad Amirul Bin Umar v 1. ) Lembaga Tatatertib Kontinjen Johor (JB-25-4-03/2024)

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI MUAR DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN BAGI SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: JB-25-6- 03/2024 Dalam perkara satu permohonan oleh Mohd Saiful Raziee bin Tukiman (RF176458, No. K/P: 860925-23-5363) untuk memohon satu Perintah Deklrasi dan/atau Certiorari dan/atau Mandamus Dalam perkara keputuan yang dibuat oleh Lembaga Tatatertib Kontinjen Johor berkuatkuasa mulai 27 Disember 2023 S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Dalam perkara Perintah-Perintah Am Bab D: Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan & Tatatertib) (Pindaan) 2002 dan Peraturan-Peratuan Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam 1993 Dalam Perkara 5, 7, 8 dan 135 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Dalam Perkara Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA MOHD SAIFUL RAZIEE BIN TUKIMAN S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ (RF 176458) (NO. K/P: 860925-23-5363) … PEMOHON

1.

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN JUDGEMENT

This is a Judicial Review application pursuant to Order 53 r 3

of the Rules of Court 2012 against the decision of the Respondents to dismiss both the Applicants from the Royal Malaysian Police Force on a number of grounds, which primarily sought a declaration that their dismissal was unlawful and that they are entitled to salary and other benefits. S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS

The first Applicant who was a constable in Muar police station received a show cause letter dated 15.10.2023 which warranted a punishment of dismissal or reduction in rank pursuant to regulation 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993. The letter contained 13 charges. The first Applicant requested for extension of time to make his representation beyond the 21 days which was duly granted. The 1st Respondent after considering his representation decided to dismiss the first Applicant based on 3rd, 4th, 7th and 13th charges. The first Applicant was charged with 13 charges. However, the relevant four charges for which he was dismissed are as follows: - “2.3 Pertuduhan Ketiga Bahawa anda sebagai Pegawai Awam iaitu Konstabel RF/212381 Muhammad Amirul bin Umar, dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia dan ketika itu bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Muar di dalam Kontinjen Johor telah didapati menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri kerana pada 11.11.2021 di antara jam 0700hrs hingga 12.11.2021 jam 0700hrs sebagai seorang anggota polis bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar telah menerima wang sejumlah RM 400.00/- secara pemindahan wang ke dalam akaun Maybank milik anda, no. S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Akaun Maybank 152189271243 daripada Chang Choon Meng merupakan rakan kepada OKT bernama Pang Yong Huat, No. KPT : 790212-05-5193 di mana wang yang diterima adalah sebagai upah membenarkan menggunakan telefon bimbit milik anda jenis Xiaomi berwarna hitam selama tempoh lebih kurang 15 minit. Perbuatan anda itu boleh diertikan sebagai berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa iaitu melanggar Peraturan 4(2) (c) (ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: - 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh –

Berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa –

(ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri. Jika anda didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan ketiga, anda boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993.

2.4 Pertuduhan Keempat Bahawa anda sebagai Pegawai Awam iaitu Konstabel RF/212381 Muhammad Amirul bin Umar, dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia dan ketika itu bertugas di Balai Polis S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Muar, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Muar di dalam Kontinjen Johor telah didapati menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri kerana pada 11.11.2021 di antara jam 0700hrs hingga 12.11.2021 jam 0700hrs sebagai seorang anggota polis bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar telah menerima wang sejumlah RM 350.00/- secara pemindahan wang ke dalam akaun Maybank milik anda, no. Akaun Maybank 152189271243 daripada Fong Chin Goon merupakan rakan kepada OKT bernama Pang Yong Huat, No. KPT : 790212-05-5193 di mana wang yang diterima adalah sebagai upah untuk membantu membelikan nasi goreng dan membenarkan menggunakan telefon bimbit milik anda jenis Xiaomi berwarna hitam. Perbuatan anda itu boleh diertikan sebagai berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa iaitu melanggar Peraturan 4(2) (c) (ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: - 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh –

Berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa –

(ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Jika anda didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan keempat, anda boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993.

2.4 Pertuduhan Ketujuh Bahawa anda sebagai Pegawai Awam iaitu Konstabel RF/212381 Muhammad Amirul bin Umar, dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia dan ketika itu bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Muar di dalam Kontinjen Johor telah didapati menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri kerana pada 14.11.2021 di antara jam 1500hrs hingga jam 2300hrs semasa bertugas sebagai Pengawal Lokap A (Lelaki), balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar telah menerima wang sejumlah RM 400.00/- secara pemindahan wang ke dalam akaun Maybank milik anda, no. Akaun Maybank 152189271243 daripada Tang Seek Wei merupakan rakan kepada OKT bernama Pang Yong Huat, No. KPT : 790212-05-5193 di mana wang yang diterima adalah sebagai upah bagi membantu membelikan satu bucket KFC dan satu botol air Pepsi melalui aplikasi Food Panda serta membenarkan menggunakan telefon bimbit milik anda jenis Xiaomi berwarna hitam. Perbuatan anda itu boleh diertikan sebagai berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa iaitu melanggar Peraturan 4(2) (c) (ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: - 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh –

Berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa –

(ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri Jika anda didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan ketujuh, anda boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993.

2.4 Pertuduhan Ketiga Belas Bahawa anda sebagai Pegawai Awam iaitu Konstabel RF/212381 Muhammad Amirul bin Umar, dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia dan ketika itu bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Muar di dalam Kontinjen Johor telah didapati Ingkar Perintah kerana pada 14.11.2021 jam lebih kurang 1811hrs semasa bertugas sebagai Pegawai Lokap A (Lelaki), Balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar telah memberi kebenaran kepada (1) OKT (L) Cina bernama Pang Yong Huat, No. KPT : 790212-05-5193 menggunakan telefon bimbit milik anda jenis Xiaomi berwarna hitam yang mana bertentangan dengan Perintah Tetap Bil : 04/2017 Ketua Polis Daerah Muar (Lokap) di Perenggan 29.8 iaitu Pegawai Polis tidak dibenarkan membawa, menyimpan, mengguna, memberi untk digunapakai telefon bimbit (Handphone) semasa bertugas di dalam lokap. Perbuatan anda itu boleh diertikan sebagai Ingkar Perintah atau berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang boleh ditafsirkan sebagai Ingkar Perintah iaitu melanggar Peraturan 4(2)(i) S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: - 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh –

Ingkar Perintah atau berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang boleh ditafsirkan dengan munasabah sebagai Ingkar Perintah. Jika anda didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan keetiga belas, anda boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993.”

The second Applicant who was a Lans Corporal in Muar police station received a show cause letter dated 15.10.2023 which warranted a punishment of dismissal or reduction in rank pursuant to regulation 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993. The letter contained 4 charges. The second Applicant made his representation by a letter dated 13.12.2023. The 1st Respondent after considering his representation decided to dismiss the second Applicant based on the 1st and 3rd charges. The second Applicant was charged with four charges. The two charges for which he was dismissed are as follows: - “2.4 Pertuduhan Pertama S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Bahawa anda sebagai Pegawai Awam iaitu Lans Koperal RF/176458 Mohd Saiful Raziee bin Tukiman, dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia dan ketika itu bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Muar di dalam Kontinjen Johor telah didapati Ingkar Perintah kerana pada 13.11.2021 jam lebih kurang 2341 hrs semasa bertugas sebagai Pengawal Lokap A (Lelaki), Balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar bersama-sama Koperal RF/174972 Mohd Zahasmi bin Abdul Rahim dan Konstabel RF/212842 Muhammad Shahrul Ridzwan bin Ma Hassan telah membawa masuk

keeping roti canai, kari daging, kari ayam, kuah dal dan 4 botol air pepsi ke dalam Lokap A (Lelaki), Balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar untuk dibekalkan kepada OKT bernama Shanmuga a/l Selladurai, No. KPT : 850418-01-5287 dan lain-lain OKT yang mana bertentangan dengan Perintah Tetap Bil : 04/2017 Ketua Polis Daerah Muar Johor (Lokap) di Perenggan 29.7 iaitu Tidak dibenarkan membawa makanan, minuman, rokok, tembakau, dadah, dan lain-lain barangan yang ditegah ke dalam lokap. Perbuatan anda itu boleh diertikan sebagai Ingkar Perintah atau berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang boleh ditafsirkan sebagai Ingkar Perintah iaitu melanggar Peraturan 4(2)(i) Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: - 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh –

Ingkar Perintah atau berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang boleh ditafsirkan dengan munasabah sebagai Ingkar Perintah. S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ Jika anda didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan pertama, anda boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan yang sama.

2.4 Pertuduhan Ketiga Bahawa anda sebagai Pegawai Awam iaitu Lans Koperal RF/176458 Mohd Saiful Raziee bin Tukiman, dalam Pasukan Polis Diraja Malaysia dan ketika itu bertugas di Balai Polis Muar, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Muar di dalam Kontinjen Johor telah didapati menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri kerana pada 13.11.2021 di antara jam 2300hrs hingga 14.11.2021 jam 0700hrs semasa bertugas sebagai Pengawal Lokap A (Lelaki), Balai Polis Muar, IPD Muar telah menerima wang sejumlah RM 100.00/- daripada Konstabel RF/212842 Muhammad Shahrul Ridzwan bin Ma Hassan yang merupakan baki wang daripada jumlah RM 500.00/- yang diterima secara tunai dari OKT bernama Shanmuga a/l Selladurai, No. KPT : 850418- 01-5287 untuk membeli makanan dan minuman dari luar. Perbuatan anda itu boleh diertikan sebagai berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa iaitu melanggar Peraturan 4(2) (c)

(ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, yang berbunyi seperti berikut: - 4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh – S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ

Berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang mungkin menyebabkan syak yang munasabah bahawa –

(ii) dia telah menggunakan kedudukan awamnya bagi faedahnya sendiri. Jika anda didapati bersalah atas pertuduhan ketiga, anda boleh dihukum mengikut Peraturan 38, Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993.” GOVERNING PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

In judicial review proceedings the courts will only intervene in disciplinary cases when a fundamental procedural flaw is shown, for the legislature has entrusted the relevant decision-making responsibility on the disciplinary authorities, not the courts. There is as such no justification for judicial interference on account only of the possibility of courts arriving at different conclusions on the same evidence, as the courts should be concerned less with the merits of the decision but more with the procedures and process being followed in arriving at such conclusions. (cases: Kerajaan Malaysia v Tay Chai Huat

3 MLJ 149; Khairul Azizi bin Mat Saad v Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador (2023) 6 MLJ 668). S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ 15 5. At the same time, it should also be appreciated that the courts are however allowed to examine the merits and substance of the case (see the case of R Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia (1997) 1 MLJ 145). In the Federal Court decision of Ranjit Kaur v Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd (2010) 6 MLJ 1 Raus Sharif FCJ (Later Chief Justice) delivering the judgment of the court, stated: where the impugned decision is flawed on the ground of procedural impropriety. However, over the years, our courts have made inroad into this field of administrative law. Rama Chandran is the mother of all those cases. The Federal Court in a landmark decision has held that the decision of inferior tribunal may be reviewed on the grounds of ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’ and possibly ‘proportionality’ which permits the courts to scrutinize the decision not only for process but also for substance. It allowed the courts to go into merits of the matter. Thus, the distinction between review and appeal no longer holds. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT

The Applicants in their grounds have raised various issues. These grounds can be summarized in the following: a) The charge drafted is not in accordance with the law and the charge is duplicity and is incomplete. In support the S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ case of Esso Production Malaysia v Maimunah Ahmad

3 CLJ 242 was cited. The case of Esso Production Malaysia can be distinguished in that the charge in that case was not clear and incomplete because they did not contain the particulars of date, time and place the offences were alleged to have been committed. They are material particulars which must be stated in the charge. However, in the present case, the charges are clear as the material particulars such as date, time and place are stated. The charges are clear and can be comprehended. The 1st Applicant even prepared 54 pages long written representation. It is also important to note that the technicalities in a criminal prosecution should not apply to disciplinary proceedings as disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal case. Disciplinary action only concerns the misconduct of a public officer and is not a criminal offence. (case: Dato Seri Hj Mustafar Ali v Jabatan lmigresen Malaysia v Yuganthiran Guinda Rajoo (2023) 3 CLJ 693, CA). b) The Applicants have requested for documents but some documents are not produced. In this respect, it is an established law that the officer concerned must be supplied with those documents which were relied upon by the disciplinary authority in the proceedings against him where the officer had requested for the documents. (case: Vijayarao v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia (2018) 12 MLJ 170). It is the finding of this court S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ that all relevant documents relevant for the Applicants to answer the charges were given in this case. All the relevant evidence of accepting money which established a prima facie case were given to the Applicants. The Applicants did not ask for any documents in their written representation. The other documents not given were all not relevant for the charges of dismissal in this case. c) The Applicants were denied oral representation. The principle of law is trite in that the right to be heard does not necessarily mean the right to be heard orally. (cases: Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang v Utra Badi K Perumal (2001) 2 CLJ 525; Dato Seri Hj Mustafar Hj Ali Jabatan lmigresen Malaysia v Yuganthiran Guinda Rajoo

3 CLJ 693). Further, the Applicants never requested for oral representation. d) Non-compliance with regulation 35 and 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993. In the present case based on regulation 35 (1) (a), the chairman of the disciplinary authority appropriate to that officer in the present case is CP Datuk Kamarulzaman (chairman) is the one decided the offence committed by the Applicants can be considered to be subject to dismissal or reduction in rank. Regulation 35(2) clearly states that if the chairman of the disciplinary authority referred to in para (1) (a) or (b) determines that the S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ disciplinary offence complained of it of a nature which warrants a punishment of dismissal or reduction in rank, he shall refer the case to the Disciplinary Authority which has the power to impose such punishment. In short, regulation 35 can be carried out by one officer and regulation 37 can be carried out by another officer. Under regulation 37 ACP Zakariah was appointed as the chairman of the disciplinary authority who has the power to impose punishment. First chairman (CP Datuk Kamarulzaman) is to decide on the type of show cause (demotion or dismissal) and the second chairman to impose the appropriate punishment. This court finds that regulation 35 and 37 have been complied. The cases referred by counsel for the Applicants can be distinguished from the facts of the present case and does not specifically refer to the interpretation of regulation 35 and 37. As such there is no procedural impropriety. The Applicants were given the chance to put in written representation. e) Breach of natural justice in failing to provide grounds of decision. The applicants are relying on the case of Rohana bte Ariffin v University Sains Malaysia (1089) 1 MLJ 487. However, the case is not directly an authority on the point. The High Court Judge (Edgar Joseph Jr J as then was) made an exception based on facts of the case when he said “agree that in a university environment, the exercise of reason and intellect are encouraged. The S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ applicants are academics and should be told of the scope of free speech and interaction with students and why their defenses were rejected. The giving of reasons for decision in a situation such as this would also serve as a guide to other academics in the position of the applicants”. Based on the factual matrix of this dispute, this court finds there is no breach of natural justice in failure to provide the grounds of decision. Further, there is nothing in the Regulations that stipulate the obligation on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to give reasons for the dismissal decision. As such there cannot be a breach of duty where none exists at law. (case: Saiful Bahari Bin Vunus v Dato Jamil bin Rakon (Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis) & Ors (2023) 3 MLJ 645 CA). f) Doctrine of Proportionality. It is the contention of the Applicants that the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable. However, there is a long line of authorities to the principle that the disciplinary tribunal of a professional body is the best judge of the seriousness of the misconduct of its members; it would require an exceptional case to enable a court to interfere with its decision in respect of punishment. Likewise, an employer, including a government, is the best person to judge the seriousness of the misconduct of its employees. (case: Ng Hock Cheng v Pengarah Am Penjara & Ors

1 CLJ 405, FC; Dato Seri Hj Mustafar Jabatan lmigresen Malaysia v Yuganthiran Guinda Rajoo S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ

3 CLJ 693). This court finds that there is nothing exceptional here for the court to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary tribunal in dismissing the Applicants based on the relevant charges. g) The 2nd Applicant although admitted to the charges but alleges undue influence. However, there is no evidence adduced as to the undue influence. CONCLUSION

Based on the above reasoning, this court finds that there are no grounds of “illegality, irrationality or proportionality” in this case. As to costs, counsel for the Applicant requested for no order as to costs since both the Applicants have no job since their dismissal. Senior Federal Counsel for the Respondents left it to the Court’s discretion. Premised on the above both the Applicants application is dismissed with no order as to costs. Dated 1st October 2025 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER S/N JhC/zbp002eNduiRTnjQ HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TA’ZIM For the Applicant : Ebrina bin Zubir Messrs Manian Nair & Co. For the Respondents : Izzatul Nawwarah binti Idrus Peguam Persekutuan