Mohd Azizul bin Abd Wahab v Tan Sri Dato' Seri Abdul Hamid Bador (IG) & Ors

Appellant(s): Mohd Azizul Bin Abd Wahab

Respondent(s):

• Tan Sri Dato' Seri Abdul Hamid Bin Bador (Ig) Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman
• Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman
• Kerajaan Malaysia

• YA Dato' Nordin Bin Hassan
• YA Dato' Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera
• YA Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh

• The appellant, a police Inspector, was charged under the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 with three disciplinary offences relating to mismanagement and non-handover of investigation papers, and was subsequently dismissed from service.
• He challenged his dismissal by judicial review, raising procedural defects and, significantly, the constitutionality of the disciplinary regulations applicable to police officers, which do not provide a statutory right of appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Board unlike that available to other public officers under the Public Services Disciplinary Board Regulations 1993.
• Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed his challenge, holding that police officers constitute a distinct class of public officers for whom differentiated disciplinary treatment is constitutionally permissible, leading to this appeal before the Federal Court on two leave questions.

• Whether the absence of a statutory right of appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Board for police officers, as opposed to other public officers under the Public Services Disciplinary Board Regulations 1993, constitutes impermissible discrimination contrary to Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution.
• Whether the impugned disciplinary regulations are inconsistent with Articles 132 and 135(2) of the Federal Constitution, and therefore void under Article 4(1) to the extent of such inconsistency.
• Whether the availability of judicial review, as opposed to a statutory appeal, is a constitutionally adequate safeguard for police officers facing disciplinary dismissal.

• The Court held that the differentiation between police officers and other public officers regarding disciplinary appeal rights is constitutionally permissible under Article 8(1), as it rests on an intelligible differentia (the distinctive statutory duties, oath, and always-on-duty status of police officers) with a rational nexus to the legitimate objective of ensuring fair and expeditious discipline within the police force.
• The Court accepted that judicial review and statutory appeal are not interchangeable remedies, but found that the availability of judicial review as a safeguard, combined with the justified classification, was sufficient to render the differentiated treatment proportionate and constitutional.
• The Court found no inconsistency with Articles 132 or 135(2), holding that Article 132 does not itself mandate uniform disciplinary machinery across all public services, and that the opportunity for written representations afforded to the appellant satisfied Article 135(2); both leave questions were answered in the negative and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.