Doctrine Of Condonation: Challenges In The Management Of Disciplinary Cases In Public University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2016.7.10Keywords:
doctrine of condonation, termination of service, public university, MalaysiaAbstract
The disciplinary committee in public university carry a huge responsibilities to uphold justice to the employer as well as to the employee in handling the disciplinary cases. One of the hindrance faced by the committee is the issue on doctrine of condonation as a waiver. Thus, it is important to understand what is doctrine of condonation in order to identify, prevent, control and deal with it when used as a defense by the employee to prevent him from being punished by the authorities. Therefore, this paper will examine the definition of the doctrine of condonation, explain the protection under Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 [Act 605] with regards to condonation, identifies the elements of a waiver by looking at the application of the doctrine by the court and the implications of the doctrine as a challenge in disciplinary cases in public universities. The methodology used is based on library research with an analysis of the legal acts, regulations and case law. The author found that the disciplinary action should be done effectively by the authorities to make sure that action is taken within reasonable time. Lack of certain rules or procedure can cause detriment in handling the issues on condonation.
Keywords: doctrine of condonation, termination of service, public university, Malaysia.
References
‘Isu Doctrine of Condonation Dalam Pengendalian Tatatertib’, Persidangan ke III Pengerusi-Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam, 6-8 September 2006, The Puteri Pacific Johor Bahru, Anjuran Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam dan Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam. Abdul Majid. ‘Condonation as waiver of the employer’s right to punish misconduct’. (1996) 2 Malayan Law Journal, pg. xvii. Alfred Charles. A-Z Guide to Employment Practice In Malaysia, Second Edition, ( 2009) CCH Asia, pg.13-14. Azman bin Abdullah v Ketua Polis Negara [1997]1CLJ 257. Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (eight edition), West Group (2004), U.S.
Marcotte, Aaron P. ‘Can Employers Forgive and Forget? : Employer Condonation and Wrongful Dismissal In Canada’. (1998) 8 Windsor Review of Legal & Social Issues. Issues 3.pg 1. McCalla v Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council [1999] 1 LRC 195. UUMJLS 7, 139-149 (2016) M Sentivelu R Marimuthu v Public Service Commission Malaysia & Anor [2005] 3 CLJ 778. National Union of Plantation Workers v Kumpulan Jerai Sdn.
Bhd., Rengam (2000) 2 AMR 1387. Ranjit Kaur a/p S. Gopal Singh v Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 8 CLJ 629. R.M.P, The Condonation Doctrine: The Search for A Rationale, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol 110, No 6.(April 1962) pp. 879-894. Scarf v Jardine [1881-5] ALL ER Rep 651 at pg. 658.
Simpson J., & Weiner E., The Oxford English Dictionary (second edition),(1989), Clarendon Press, Oxford. Shad Saleem Faruqi. The Laws Relating to Staff Discipline at Malaysian Universities, Seminar Perundangan Sumber Manusia, 13July 2011, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Telekom Malaysia Bhd. V Subramaniam Ahyahio [1998]1ILR 476.
Wild, Susan Ellis. Webster’s New World Law Dictionary (second edition), (2010), Wiley Publishing Inc., New Jersey.
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-10-03Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
- OpenCitations 0 View →
- Crossref 0 View →
- Scopus 0 not indexed View →
- Google Scholar no free count Search →
- Dimensions no free count Search →
