Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur v Mohd Zulfahmi Bin Mohd Yasin

Appellant(s): Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Polis Diraja Malaysia Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur

Respondent(s): Mohd Zulfahmi Bin Mohd Yasin

• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng

• The respondent, a police sergeant, was charged with 24 disciplinary offences including 20 charges of unauthorized absence (totalling 214 days between January 2021 and July 2022) under the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.
• A show-cause letter was only issued in May 2023, some two to three years after the earliest absences, despite the respondent having produced medical evidence of Major Depression Disorder covering the relevant period.
• The disciplinary authority found the respondent guilty on all charges and dismissed him in respect of the 20 absenteeism charges; the High Court subsequently quashed the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement, prompting this appeal.

• Whether the disciplinary authority had complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under Regulation 25 (intermittent absence) as opposed to relying on the general misconduct provision in Regulation 4(2)(g).
• Whether dismissal could validly be imposed for intermittent unauthorised absence under Regulation 25, given that Regulation 26 (dealing with continuous absence of 7 days or more) expressly lists dismissal as a punishment while Regulation 25 does not.
• Whether the disciplinary authority's prolonged delay in acting, and its acceptance of the respondent's continued service despite known absences, amounted to condonation that vitiated the subsequent dismissal.

• The Court of Appeal held that dismissal can lawfully be imposed for intermittent absence under Regulation 25, as the power to punish by dismissal derives from Regulation 38 generally, disagreeing with the High Court's reasoning that Regulation 25 does not permit dismissal.
• Nonetheless, the Court found that the disciplinary authority failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Regulation 25(1), which requires the Head of Department to report absences "as soon as possible"; the two-to-three-year delay in issuing the show-cause letter constituted a serious procedural impropriety.
• The Court held that the disciplinary authority's continued acceptance of the respondent's service despite known absences and medical issues amounted to condonation, which precluded reliance on the same facts to justify dismissal; the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM30,000 to the respondent.