Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said Aiman Balpaki’s application to quash the disciplinary board’s decision was amenable to judicial review since it was tainted with procedural impropriety.

He also said Aiman’s dismissal would have affected his livelihood.

Wan Farid cited judicial precedent pronouncing that the right to “life” under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution includes the right to continue in public service.

“The Court of Appeal in Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor (1986) reiterated that the expression ‘life’ is to be given a broad and liberal meaning,” he said in reinstating Aiman to his former employment with no loss of entitlements or benefits.

He said when the right of an individual is adversely affected by a potential constitutional breach, the decision maker should give its reasons for arriving at its conclusion.

“The duty to give reasons ‘on a case-to-case basis’, to my mind, includes a situation that involves a potential breach of constitutional rights, as in this case,” he said in the 15-page written judgment delivered two weeks ago.

Wan Farid also allowed the judicial review applications of two other rank and file, Idzuddin Mazli, 41, and Sufian Abdul Hamid, 32, on similar grounds.

Wan Farid said when an applicant has the benefit of knowing the reasons for the decision, he or she would be in a better position to seek legal advice, including whether to challenge it.

He added that Clause 37 of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 does not contain any stipulations exempting the board from giving the reasons for its decisions.

On July 7, 2022, the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters issued a show cause letter to Aiman, asking the 41-year-old to explain 10 counts of misconduct that could lead to his dismissal or reduction in rank.

Aiman submitted a written representation a month later, but in November 2022, the board dismissed him from employment after finding him guilty of the first six charges. He was let off with a warning for the remaining four.

In his judicial review application, Aiman named the board, the inspector-general of police and the government as respondents. He was granted leave on March 14 last year to have the merits of his case heard.

In his submissions before Wan Farid, lawyer G Sreekant Pillai acknowledged that the 1993 regulations contained no express provisions requiring the board to state its reasons.

However, he said this did not mean the duty to give reasons did not exist, especially given that the decision affected Aiman’s livelihood.

Sreekant said that since the right to be heard was only by way of written representation, it was important for the board to show it had considered Aiman’s explanations.

The lawyer said a “reasoned decision” was necessary so that the right to appeal could be properly and meaningfully exercised.

He said Aiman had been employed since 2013 with an unblemished record of service until his case was brought before the board.

Federal counsel Sallehuddin Ali contended that the 1993 regulations did not stipulate that the board must give reasons for its finding of guilt.

He said Aiman knew that disciplinary action was being taken against him with a view to dismissal when he received the show cause letter on July 6.

Sreekant said the government has filed an appeal on all three cases.