Rosli Bin Mohamad v Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (NO.1) Jabatan Penjara Malaysia (JB-25-8-07/2025)

LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KUMPULAN SOKONGAN (NO.1)

2.

3.

JABATAN PENJARA MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGEMENT

This is a Judicial Review application by the Applicant pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 against the decision of the Respondents, which decided that the Applicant was liable on a charge proffered against him and punished him with a reduction in rank from Grade KA22 to Grade KA20 with a salary of RM 2,739.27 effective 15.9.2022, pursuant to Peraturan 38(f), Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993.

The Applicant received a letter dated 3.2.2022 from the 1st Respondent, informing him of the charge against him for receiving / accepting a sum of RM 1,500.00 from the mother of a prisoner named Balasubramaniam A/L Veswanathan, transferred through Maybank account number 151017065453.

Following thereto, the Applicant had committed an offence under Peraturan 255(1), Peraturan-Peraturan Penjara 2000 as follows: - “255 Fi, ganjaran, dll. yang tidak dibenarkan

Tiada seorang pun pegawai penjara boleh menerima apa-apa fi atau ganjaran, atau mempunyai apa-apa urusan wang dengan, atau bagi pihak, mana-mana banduan atau mana-mana pelawat bagi mana-mana banduan.”

Concurrently, the Applicant had also committed an offence under Peraturan 4(2)(f), (g), and (i), Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 as follows: - “4(2) Seseorang pegawai tidak boleh:

tidak jujur atau amanah;

tidak bertanggungjawab; dan

ingkar perintah atau berkelakuan dengan apa-apa cara yang boleh ditafsirkan dengan munasabah sebagai ingkar perintah.”

In the same letter, the Applicant was allowed to make a written representation pursuant to Peraturan 37, Peraturan-Peraturan Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993, within a period of 21 days from the date he was informed of the charge made against him, containing the grounds upon which he relied to exculpate himself.

The Applicant later prepared a written representation dated 21.2.2022 providing grounds and reasons to exculpate himself from the charge. Upon considering the charge and the representation by the Applicant, the 1st Respondent decided that the Applicant was liable and punished him with a reduction in rank from Grade KA22 to Grade KA20 with a salary of RM 2,739.27.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Applicant submitted an appeal to Lembaga Rayuan Tatatertib (2nd Respondent). Upon considering the merits of the grounds of appeal, the 2nd Respondent decided to confirm the decision made by the 1st Respondent.

Dissatisfied with both decisions by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the Applicant initiated a judicial review proceeding praying for the following reliefs: - “1. Pemohon diberi kebenaran untuk memohon suatu Perintah Certiorari bagi membatalkan seluruh Keputusan yang diputuskan oleh Responden-Responden melalui surat bertarikh 26 Mac 2025 yang telah menolak permohonan rayuan Pemohon terhadap

Responden-Responden yang telah mengenakan hukuman turun pangkat terhadap permohon berkuatkuasa 15 September 2022;

Pemohon diberi kebenaran untuk memohon suatu Perintah Deklarasi bahawa tindakan tatatertib penurunan pangkat yang dikenakan oleh Responden-Responden ke atas Pemohon adalah tidak sah dan tiada efek;

Pemohon diberi kebenaran untuk memohon suatu Perintah Mandamus bahawa Pemohon dikembalikan ke pangkat asalnya iaitu seorang Pegawai Penjawa Gred KA22 (TBK);

Suatu perintah bahawa Pemohon layak menerima semula semua pembayaran gaji, elaun, emolument dan segala bayaran yang Pemohon layak terima mengikut skim perkhidmatannya;

Suatu siasatan dan/atau inkuiri dan/atau taksiran oleh Timbalan Pendaftar atau Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Muar untuk menentukan semua pembayaran gaji yang tertunggak, emolument, elaun-elaun dan faedah-faedah lain yang Pemohon sepatutnya terima dari Tarikh Pemohon diturun pangkat sehingga penyelesaian penuh;

Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk memfailkan apa jua permohonan interlokutari yang berkaitan dengan Semakan Kehakiman ini;

Kos dalam tindakan dan insidental permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa;

Semua arahan dan perintah yang perlu dan secara bersampingan diberikan; dan

Lain-lain relif yang dianggap adil dan suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.”

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 (2012) 3 MLJ 149; Khairul Azizi bin Mat Saad v Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador (2023) 6 MLJ 668).

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.

The Applicant’s grounds can be summarized under three different headings.

Applicant was not allowed to appear in person to defend himself or to provide an explanation.

The principle of law is trite in that the right to be heard does not necessarily mean the right to be heard orally. “The right to be heard” as enshrined in Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution did not intend to be the right to be heard orally as enumerated in the Federal Court decision of Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang & Anor v. Utra Badi K Perumal [2001] 2 CLJ 525, which remains good law till today.

Perusing through the Applicant’s representation as well as the documents tendered by the Applicant, it is clear that the Applicant had never requested for an oral hearing. As such, the Applicant’s argument that he was never called to defend his case orally cannot hold water and also does not fulfil the requirements set in the case of Vijayarao a/l Sepermaniam v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia [2018] 12 MLJ

17.

There is also no requirement for the Disciplinary Authority under Peraturan 37(5) to establish an Investigation Committee for the purpose of obtaining further clarification if the representation of the Applicant does not exculpate him to the satisfaction of the appropriate Disciplinary Authority. (case: Ezaky Mulya bin Sapawi v Dato’ Sri Nadzri Siron Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 5 MLJ 472).

As such, there are no merits in this ground advanced by the Applicant.

(ii) No explanation or reasons given to the Respondent’s decision.

This again has no merit. The Court of Appeal in Saiful Bahari bin Yunus v Dato’ Jamil bin Rakon (Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis) & Ors [2023] 3 MLJ 645 decided that the Applicant, like in the present case, does not need the detailed reasons of the decision by reason that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision. The Court in that case further viewed that there is no breach when there is no duty to do so. (Please also refer to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Ezaky Mulya bin Sapawi v Dato’ Sri Nadzri Siron Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan Malaysia & Ors [2022] 5 MLJ 472).

The case of Rohana Ariffin v. Universiti Sains Malaysia & Another Case [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 390, relied on by the Applicant, must be distinguished on the facts. 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 the facts of the case when he said, “I agree that in a university environment, the exercise of reason and intellect is encouraged. The applicants are academics and should be told of the scope of free speech and interaction with students and why their defenses are rejected. The giving of reasons for the decision in a situation such as this would also serve as a guide to other academics in the position of the applicants.”

(iii) Doctrine of Proportionality

The Applicant contends that no reasonable tribunal would have concluded as was done in the present case. In other words, it is contended that the punishment meted out to the Applicant was harsh and unreasonable. However, there is a long line of judicial 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 [1998] 1 CLJ 405, FC; Dato’ Seri Hj Mustafar Hj Ali (Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No. 1) Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Putrajaya) & Ors v. Yuganthiran Guinda Rajoo [2023] 3 CLJ 693).

In the present case, the Applicant is considered fortunate since he was not dismissed but rather punished with a reduction in rank. The Applicant, at the time, was a prison officer entrusted with the duties and responsibilities prescribed by, among others, the Prison Act 1995 [Act 537]. The Applicant had manifestly failed to discharge his duties with the requisite integrity and honesty. The consequences that ensued ought not to have come as a surprise to him.

Premised on the above, the Applicant had failed to prove illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety on the part of Respondents. Accordingly, the judicial review of the Applicant is dismissed with costs of RM 3,000.00. Dated 6th March 2026 t.t. KALYANA KUMAR A/L SOCKALINGAM JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MUAR JOHORE DARUL TA’ZIM For the Applicant : Siti Nur Fadhilah Afiqah Binti Mohammad Ridhuan Messrs Lydiana Law Chambers For the Respondents : Izzatul Nawwarah binti Idrus Peguam Persekutuan Penasihat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Melaka