PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR

[2019] 6 MLRA 307

PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Azahar Mohamed (Now CJM), Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Idrus Harun, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-70-08-2018 (P)]
21 October 2019

JUDGMENT

Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 5 December 2018, affirming the decision of the Penang High Court dated 25 April 2017 which allowed the respondent's application for judicial review to quash the decision of the 1st appellant. The High Court held that the failure by the appellants to give the respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by s 16(4) of the Local Government Act 1976 ("LGA") and reg 29(1) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Municipal Council of the Province Wellesley Regulations 1995 ("1995 Regulations") rendered the 1st appellant's decision to dismiss the respondent from his employment unsustainable in law.

[2] The appeal was by leave granted by this court on 6 August 2018. The questions of law reserved for our determination are as follows:

(1) Whether subregulation 25(2) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Municipal Council of Province Wellesley Regulations 1995 which provides that subregulation (1) shall not apply in the following cases:

(a) where an officer is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct in respect of which a criminal charge has been proved against him; or

(b) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by it in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to carry out the requirements of this regulation; or

(c) where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof it is not expedient to carry out the requirements of this regulation; or

(d) where there has been made against the officer any order of detention, supervision, restricted residence, banishment or deportation, or where there has been imposed on such officer any form of restriction or supervision by bond or otherwise, under any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, prevention of crime, preventive detention, restricted residence, banishment, immigration, or protection of women and girls, is ultra viress 16(4) of the Local Government Act 1976 and is as a consequence void.

Sign up to view full cases Login