VIJAYARAO SEPERMANIAM v. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA

[2018] 3 MELR 517

VIJAYARAO SEPERMANIAM v. SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Ahmad Maarop CJM, Hasan Lah, Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Zaharah Ibrahim FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 01-37-08-2017(P)]
16 August 2018

JUDGMENT

Ramly Ali FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant, Vijayarao a/l Sepermaniam, against the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal and affirming the decision of the High Court whereby his application for judicial review against the decision of the respondent was dismissed. For the purpose of this judgment, the respondent will be referred to as the PSC.

[2] In his judicial review application, the appellant was seeking, inter alia, for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the PSC in dismissing him from his service at the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and for a declaration that his dismissal from the public service was unlawful, unconstitutional and void.

[3] The High Court dismissed his application with costs. The appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

[4] Leave to appeal to this court was granted on 19 June 2017 on the following questions:

(i) Whether the appellant had the constitutional right to appeal to the Appeal Board against the decision of the PSC under art 144(5B) (ii) of the Federal Constitution?; (Question 1) and

(ii) Whether in view of art 132(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution, the appellant ought not to be dismissed from public service without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard which includes the right of appeal as provided by art 144(5B)(ii) of the Federal Constitution and reg 14 of the Public Services and Disciplinary Board Regulation 1993. (Question 2)

Background Facts

[5] The appellant was an investigating officer (Gred P44) of the MACC. On 6 August 2012, the secretary of the PSC wrote to the appellant informing him that the PSC had received a report to the effect that the appellant had committed disciplinary offences. The appellant was also informed of the PSC's decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against him under reg 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 (PU(A) 395) (the POCD Regulations).

Sign up to view full cases Login