Case:

Brief Facts:

• University Teknologi Petronas (“University”) is a private university established in 1997 and Amirul Fairuz Ahmad (“Amirul”) was employed by the University as an Executive at the Civil Engineering Department since 1 March 2007.
  
  
• On 15 September 2015, the University was alerted by AIA, the University’s Group Insurer, regarding one suspicious claim because the name printed on the receipt appears to have been altered.
  
  
• It was later found out by AIA that the claim made by Amirul was actually for a dental treatment received by Amirul’s wife.
  
  
• The University initiated disciplinary action and Domestic Inquiry [DI] against the Claimant. Amirul in his letter in response to the charges stated in the show cause letter to him admitted to his mistake but that he had no intention to cheat the University.
  
  
• After the DI, the Panel found that Amirul did submit an unentitled claim and recommended “reminder, penalty” against Amirul.
  
  
• However, the management of the University decided to terminate Amirul due to the seriousness of the misconduct.
  
  
• Aggrieved by the University’s decision to terminate his employment, Amirul lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources and his complaint was referred to the Industrial Court for determination.

THE DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT (IC)

• The IC found in favour of Amirul.
  
  
• The IC held that even though Amirul had admitted to the charges, the Panel at the Inquiry found him not guilty for the 1^st charge and dropped the second charge.
  
  
• The IC held that since the DI found him not guilty, the University had failed to prove their case against Amirul.
  
  
• The University challenged the decision at the High Court

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT

• The High Court held that the IC had correctly determined the case through the Notes of Proceedings of the Domestic Inquiry.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL

• The Court of Appeal [COA] asserted the fact that Industrial Court found the Claimant not guilty despite the Claimant admitting to the charges, would constitute and is clearly illegal, irrational and an error of law.
  
  
• The COA held that it was procedurally wrong for the IC to not consider the evidence at the trial and relying on the DI.
  
  
• The COA further held the IC should not be concerned with the DI held by the employer but to hear the dispute fresh in the Courts.
  
  
• The Court of Appeal held that an “unentitled claim” would fall under General Rules, Part IV Section 1 Subsection 1.3 (vi) “being dishonest or conducting oneself in such a manner as to lay oneself open to suspicion of dishonesty”. Therefore, the charges had been proven based on the Domestic Inquiry findings.
  
  
• The Court of Appeal reasoned that once Amirul exhibits dishonesty or lack of integrity, the trust and confidence reposed in him by the University/employer can no longer subsist.
  
  
• In these circumstances, it is reasonable for the University to dismiss Amirul, as integrity is the foundation of education, the very purpose of the University.