PETALING JAYA: Placing an officer on leave when he is accused of an offence will not only help to facilitate the investigations into the offence, but it can also safeguard his rights as well, say civil society groups.
Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) chief executive officer Pushpan Murugiah (pic) said it is important to note the presumption of innocence, which all Malaysians are entitled to under the criminal justice system.
“An officer under criminal investigation has not been found guilty, so there must be some leniency afforded to him.
“Placing him on ‘interdiction’ or leave helps to create a more conducive environment for investigations to proceed effectively, as it pauses the state of affairs pending the outcome of the investigation.
“In doing so, the officer will also be prevented from causing more harm in his role or hampering investigations through his presence in the office,” he said yesterday.
According to Pushpan, the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 provides interdiction for the purpose of investigation as part of the prescribed procedure for an officer accused or suspected of having committed a criminal or disciplinary offence.
The regulations also protect the officer, he added.
The regulations also place the power to make such decisions in the hands of the appropriate disciplinary authority, which, in this case, would be the Public Service Commission (PSC), he added.
Pushpan was commenting on Marine Department director-general Capt Mohamad Halim Ahmed who was told to go on leave by Transport Minister Anthony Loke.
However, Pushpan said that it is uncertain whether Loke himself made the decision based on the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.
“In any event, it is important for the statutory procedures to be followed here, especially given that the powers of disciplinary control over public servants are constitutionally afforded to the PSC,” he added.
In determining whether to interdict an officer, the disciplinary authority must consider whether the allegation is directly related to the officer’s duties or whether the officer’s presence in the office would hamper investigations.Transparency International Malaysia president Dr Muhammad Mohan said Loke’s decision to instruct the officer to go on leave was fair.
“This is because if they are still in office, there is a possibility that they will interfere with investigations,” he added.
Malaysia Corruption Watch (MCW) president Jais Abdul Karim said he supports Loke’s decision but said the usual procedure is that a public employee facing serious charges should be suspended from duty rather than be placed on leave.
“This ensures that the investigation and the process of justice can proceed without any interference or conflict of interest.
“MCW believes that all ministers should adopt this approach to uphold integrity and public trust in their respective departments.”
Jais said suspending an officer facing charges does not imply guilt but is a precautionary measure to ensure impartiality.
“While specific instances may not always be widely publicised, it is not unprecedented for officers facing charges to be asked to go on leave or be suspended from duty.
“The principle behind such decisions is to protect the credibility of the institution and ensure justice is served impartially.”
On Tuesday, Mohamad Halim was accused of cheating his predecessor Datuk Baharin Abdul Hamid at the department headquarters in Port Klang on Oct 27, 2020.He was alleged to have deceived Baharin into issuing exemption letters to shipping companies to bring in heavy grade oil into Malaysian waters.
