MOHD AZIZUL BIN ABD WAHAB v 1. ) TAN SRI DATO' SERI ABDUL HAMID BIN BADOR (IG) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
Catchwords
The following issues arise in This Appeal: (1) whether the 3 Charges were defective as follows - (a) the 1st Charge did not state a time period during which the Applicant was alleged to have committed the disciplinary offence as charged in the 1st Charge; (b) the number of IPs stated in the 3 Charges differed from the number of IPs given in - (i) the statements of witnesses recorded in the Investigation (JIPS); and (ii) the Applicant’s 1st Statement (JIPS); and (c) the 3 Charges overlapped (bertindih) regarding certain IPs. Hence, the Applicant was unjustly charged and punished thrice for the same disciplinary offence; (2) what is the effect of IGSO and Circulars/Guidelines?; (3) did the 2nd Respondent fail to supply the Alleged Documents (Not Provided to Applicant) to the Applicant?; (4) whether the Applicant could prove that - (a) the 2nd Respondent had not been lawfully constituted as a DA in this case; and (b) the 1st Respondent did not chair the DA which made the DA’s Decision in this case. The above question concerns a discussion of ss 103 and 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA); (5) could the Applicant rely on a defence of condonation of the 3 Charges by the Respondents?; and (6) whether the 2nd Respondent’s Decision was - (a) illegal”; (b) tainted with “procedural impropriety; (c) “irrational”; and/or (d) “disproportionate”.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (b-01a-21-01-2023)