From the problem-based case study below, discuss and identify the principle, legal framework, grounds of review and remedies under administrative law in solving the legal problem arising, thereof.

The Public Service Commission Act 2018 (fictitious) is set up to deal with matters involving staff /officers in the public service of the government of Malaysia. Section 10 of the Act states that in dealing with staff disciplinary action, the head of the department must consult with the Director-General of Public Service when making any decision involving a suspension and dismissal of staff. In addition, section 11 of the Act stipulates that any Disciplinary Board Committee appointment must first receive approval from the Director. Regulations of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (fictitious) are later set up to deal withs staff disciplines under the Public Service Commission Act 2012. According to Regulation 8 of the Regulations of Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Public Service Commission Act 2012 (fictitious):

*A staff who is absent without leave, except due to sickness or being in other inevitable circumstances will cause him to be subjected to disciplinary action."

Regulation 10 provides that the head of a department shall suspend an officer/staff who is absent from work without permission and withhold the salary and allowances of such staff from the date of his or her absence. In addition, the head of a department shall report the matter to the Disciplinary Authority within 14 working days from the date of absence of the concerned officer/staff concerned. The reports must meet the following checklist:

• The head of a department has suspended the relevant officers/staff from performing the duties and duties of his office and withheld his salary and allowance due to his absence from work without permission.
• Lists the dates the staff was absent from work.
• A copy of the suspension letter addressed to the officer/staff is given.
• A show-cause letter addressed to the officer/staff about his absenteeism.

Staff / Officers reported to be absent from work without permission are required to respond to the show cause letter in writing or defend themselves orally within 14 days to the Disciplinary Authority from the dale the officer/staff concerned received a letter of suspension. If the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied with the explanation given, they may proceed with termination.

QUESTION

Aneep, a senior driver with the Department of Works, had hen absent from work for 15 days since early November 2019. Aneep was previously involved in an accident in October 2021 when the government lorry he drove collided with a motorcyclist, Leo. Aneep was on the way to deliver some goods to the department's storage unit. He was driving above the speed limit all the time because he was late. Although he was not injured in the accident, he has since been having difficulty sleeping and found it difficult to get to work at all. He tried to receive treatment from a private clinic close to his accommodation.

On the 6% of November, he received a simple letter merely stating that he had been suspended from his job and his salary and allowance were being withheld until he attended a disciplinary hearing on the 201 of November 2021.His Head of Department, Encik Leman, has never dealt with any disciplinary cares, and his department has never appointed any staff as a committee member in the Disciplinary Board before. Hotter, due to time constraints, he appointed three other panels to the Disciplinary Board to sit for the hearing. One of the panels is Miss Vee, a senior clerk at the department. Miss Vee happens to be Aneep`'s former fianc. Aneep and Miss Vee broke off their engagement he because she found out that he had on affair with another colleague and has since not been on speaking terms.

The panels refused to accept Aneep`s defence of insomnia and the medical certificate during the hearing because a private clinic issued it. They also did not accept his request to call the doctor who treated him as a witness at the hearing. After contemplating the case and considering Miss Vee's views regarding Aneep`s characters, the panels decided to proceed with his termination. In the meantime, Leo's injuries from the accident with Aneep has caused him to lose his job as a security guard at a shopping mall due to his inability to walk unaided. Leo felt the department, on behalf of Aneeb, must compensate him for his injuries.

Advise Aneep on whether he could successfully challenge these decisions through judicial review, with reference to the situation indicated above and whether Leo can hold the Department of Works liable for the injury and loss suffered by him from the accident. Also, indicate the types of remedies available to them in their application for judicial review. Answer with reference to general principles of administrative law and relevant, illustrative cases.