1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia v Mohd Aiman Bin Balpaki

w-01a-335-05-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 15 February 2026 • W-01(A)-335-05/2024 • 48 min read
40 cases cited (0 SG, 40 foreign)

Catchwords

Judicial review – Public service disciplinary proceedings – Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) – Respondents dismissed following various charges of misconduct – High Court quashed dismissal on the ground of failure to provide reasons for decision – Whether Disciplinary Authority (DB) has a statutory or constitutional duty to provide reasons for its decision – Whether dismissal affected right to livelihood under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution – Proper scope of Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution in public service dismissals – Distinction between judicial review of public service disciplinary bodies and private employment disputes under the Industrial Court – Per incuriam doctrine – High Court’s reliance on Nazrul Imran bin Mohd Nor v Civil Service Commission Malaysia & Anor [2021] 6 MLJ 750 – Whether Nazrul Imran was decided per incuriam – Whether there was a fundamental procedural defect or irregularity in the decision-making process. Fundamental liberties – Right to life and livelihood – Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution – Whether public officers have a constitutional right to remain in public service – Tenure of office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong – Article 132(2A) of the Federal Constitution – Dismissal or reduction in rank – Safeguard of reasonable opportunity to be heard – Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution – Whether Article 135(2) requires an oral hearing or the provision of reasons for a decision – Relationship between Article 5(1) and Article 135(2) in disciplinary matters. Conduct and Discipline – Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 – Regulation 37 – Disciplinary procedure for dismissal or reduction in rank – Compliance with prescribed procedures – Whether a disciplinary authority must explain why an officer's representation failed to exculpate them – Evaluation of evidence and determination of punishment as the exclusive province of the disciplinary authority – Limits of judicial intervention in public service disciplinary cases. "Holds office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong" – Article 132(2A) Federal Constitution.

Judges (3)

Azizah binti Haji Nawawi Delivered Azizul Azmi bin Adnan Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Coram

Counsel (4)

Jabatan Peguam Negara Firm Sreekant Pillai Firm Mohammad Sallehuddin Bin Md Ali Counsel Appellant Sreekant Pillai Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

Kerajaan Malaysia Appellant Ketua Polis Negara Appellant LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA Appellant Mohd Aiman bin Balpaki Respondent

Statutes Cited

Civil Law Act
s 3
Federal Constitution
Art 135 Art 135(2) Art 5 Art 5(1)
Pensions Ordinance
s 5
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (40)

UK (5)
[1895] AC 229 [1944] KB 718 [1953] 2 QB 482 [1955] 2 QB 379 [1971] 1 WLR 433
MY (35)
[1969] 1 MLJ 6 [1976] 2 MLJ 67 [1982] 1 MLJ 68 [1988] 1 CLJ 276 [1991] 1 MLJ 417 [1991] 2 CLJ 881 [1994] 2 CLJ 333 [1996] 1 MLJ 261 [1997] 1 CLJ 147 [1997] 1 MLJ 145 [1997] 1 MLJ 789 [1997] 2 CLJ 11 [1997] 3 CLJ 235 [1998] 1 MLJ 1 [1998] 1 MLJ 153 [1998] 1 MLJ 305 [1998] 3 CLJ 288 [2000] 1 CLJ 681 [2001] 1 CLJ 9 [2001] 2 CLJ 525 [2001] 3 CLJ 9 [2003] 4 CLJ 625 [2004] 2 CLJ 777 [2004] 2 MLJ 288 [2008] 6 MLJ 1 [2010] 6 MLJ 1 [2010] 8 CLJ 629 [2012] 3 MLJ 149 [2015] 5 CLJ 1 [2018] 2 MLJ 537 [2018] 2 MLJ 590 [2020] 1 CLJ 595 [2021] 6 MLJ 750 [2022] 5 MLJ 472 [2023] 3 MLJ 645

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-01a-335-05-2024)