The Right to Oral Hearing in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Public Servants: A Malaysian Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2019.10.1.4Keywords:
Natural justice, Right to an oral hearing, Disciplinary proceedings, Public servants, Judicial reviewAbstract
The decisions of disciplinary authorities in disciplinary proceedings continue to be judicially reviewed on the grounds of their failure to grant an oral hearing to affected public servants albeit there is a well-established principle by the Privy Council in Najar Singh’s case since 1976. Such failure may implicate the deliverance of justice, and affect the reputation and goodwill of the Malaysian government as the major employer in the nation. The constitutional protection of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to public servants under Article 135(2) in the case of dismissal and reduction of rank should be interpreted in the light of the fundamental right to life as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The purpose of this article is to examine the approaches of the court in determining the right to an oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings against public servants; and whether the administrative decisions of the disciplinary authorities should be subject to judicial review or not. This paper forwarded a submission that the court should adopt a liberal approach in determining the right to an oral hearing in disciplinary proceedings against public servants.
References
Abdul Ghani Che Mat v. Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Ors, [2017] 3 CLJ 399
Annual Report Public Service Department Malaysia. (2013). Percetakan Nasional Berhad. Ann Seng Wan v. Suruhanjaya Polis Diraja Malaysia & Anor. [2002] 1 CLJ 493 B. Surinder Singh Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] MLJ 169 at p 172
Bird, R. (1983). Osborn’s concise law dictionary (7th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell, at p 227.
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CBNS 180; 143 ER 414 Fadzil bin Mohamed Noor v Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia [1981] 2 MLJ 196
Fariza Romli, Nuarrual Hilal Md Dahlan & Rusniah Ahmad. (2012). Prinsip keadilan asasi dalam undang-undang berkaitan prosedur perbicaraan tatatertib di Jabatan Polis: Suatu analisa. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 3, 145-163.
Federal Constitution. (2017). Malaysia: The Commissioner of Law Revision.
Gan Ching Chuan. (2007). Disciplinary proceedings against public officers in Malaysia. Singapore: Lexis Nexis.
George Sampson Akpan. (2000). The public servant and security of employment: A comparative study. In Singapore Journal of International Comparative Law. Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Ghazi bin Mohd Sawi v Mohd Haniff bin Omar, Ketua Polis Negara [1998] 1 CLJ 405
Jain. MP. (1983). Administrative law in the common-law countries: Recent developments and future trends. Journal of Malaysian Comparative Law, (June and December). UUMJLS 10(1) Jan 2019 (69-92) Ketua Pengarah Kastam vs. Ho Kwan Seng [1977] 2 MLJ 152
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 MLJ 149 Lembaga Tatatertib Perkhidmatan Awam Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang & Anor v. Utra Badi Perumal Mat Ghaffar Baba v. Ketua Polis Negara & Anor, [2008] 1 CLJ Mohd Ahmad v. Yang Di-Pertua Majlis Daerah Jempol, Negeri Sembilan and Anor (1997) 3 CLJ 135
MP Jain. (1997). Administrative law of Malaysia and Singapore. (3rd ed.). Malayan Law Journal. Kuala Lumpur. McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520
Mullock v Abeedeen Corporation (1971) 2 All ER 1278, 1294 Najar Singh v Government of Malaysia & Anor [1976] 1 MLJ 203 Nakkuda Ali v Jayaratne [1951] AC 66 Ng Hock Cheng v Pengarah Am Penjara Taiping & Ors. [1998] 1 CLJ 405
Nik Ahmad Kamal Nik Mahmood. (2003). Perkhidmatan awam. In Ahmad Ibrahim, Faiza Thamby Chik, Ramlah Muhammad, Asiah Daud & Ismail Hassan (Eds.), Perkembangan undang-undang Perlembagaan Persekutuan (pp. 231-273). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Peter S Crook. (1996). Natural justice and the constitution: Recent cases from the court of appeal. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 23 Part 1 & 2, 37-56, p. 37. Public Officer (Conduct and Discipline) 1993. (2017). International Law Book Services: Selangor Darul Ehsan. Raja Abdul Malek Muzaffar Shah bin Raja Shahruzzaman v Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan Polis & Ors. [1995] 1 MLJ Ridge v Balwin [1964] AC 40 Rama Chandran v. The Industrial Court of Malaysia [1997] 1 MLJ Ramalingam s/o Muthusamy v Chong Kim Fong [1978] 1 MLJ 83 Rosnelli Kundor v Kelantan State Economic Development Corporation (2004) 4 CLJ 492
Rusniah Ahmad. (2013). Aplikasi prinsip dan kes-kes tatatertib. Sistem pengurusan tatatertib di tempat kerja. Sintok: Penerbit Universiti Utara Malaysia. Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor, [1996] 1 MLJ 261
Shad Saleem Faruqi. (2008). Document of destiny: The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. Star Publication Berhad. UUMJLS 10(1) Jan 2019 (69-92)
Suhaila Shahrul Anuar (2017, April 19). Jumlah penjawat awam munasabah, Retrieved from https://www.bharian.com.my/ node/273436 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam v. Hjh Marina Hj Mustafa [2015] 4 CLJ 312 The Queen v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Parker [1953] 1 WLR 1150 V Ananta Raman, Natural Justice - The Malaysian Experience [1993] 3 MLJ i
Public Services Commission & Anor v Vickneswary a/p RM Santhivelu [2008] 6 CLJ 573 Vijayarao a/l Sepermaniam v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia [2018] MYFC 20 Yusof Sudin v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Polis & Anor [2012] 1 CLJ 448 at p 450 Zainal bin Hashim v Government of Malaysia [1979] 2 MLJ 276
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-07Counts 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 →
