Nobody enjoys answering uncomfortable questions on a job application.
“Why did you leave your previous employment?”
“What is your greatest weakness?”
“Have you ever been charged in court?”
The temptation may be to give the answer most likely to secure the job. However, an inaccurate (false) answer can return much later to bite one in the rear.
In Dinesh Kumar a/l Manickam v Joe Green Precast Sdn Bhd [Award No. 1619 of 2026], the Industrial Court considered whether an employee could be dismissed after his employer discovered that he had concealed a previous criminal conviction when applying for the job.
What Happened in the Case?
The employee applied for a position with Joe Green Precast Sdn Bhd and was subsequently employed as a Safety Officer for its Senai and Seelong plants.
The job application form asked:
“Have you been charged in a Court of Law? If yes, please specify.”
The employee answered “N/A”.
He also signed a declaration confirming that the information provided was correct and that he had not deliberately withheld any material fact.
The employer later discovered that he had previously been charged and convicted of theft by a servant under section 381 of the Penal Code. The offence concerned theft from an employer, and he had been fined RM5,000.
This was particularly relevant because his new role involved workplace safety, compliance, risk management and responsibility for protecting the company’s operations and assets.
What Did the Employee Say?
The employee maintained that he did not understand that his earlier court matter meant that he had been “charged”.
He explained that he had attended court and paid a fine but thought it was merely a normal procedure. He therefore disputed that he had knowingly made a false declaration.
The Industrial Court did not accept this explanation.
The Court found that he had deliberately answered “N/A” despite having appeared in court and paid a substantial fine following his conviction.
In the Court’s view, the omission was intended to improve his prospects of securing the position.
Must a Job Applicant Disclose a Criminal Record?
There is no simple rule requiring every job applicant to volunteer every past criminal matter regardless of its relevance.
Much depends on:
- whether the employer asked a clear question;
- what information was requested;
- whether the applicant’s answer was truthful;
- whether the information was material to the role;
- the nature and age of the offence;
- the responsibilities attached to the position; and
- whether the employer relied on the representation when hiring.
The central problem in Dinesh Kumar was not simply that the employee had a previous conviction.
It was that he had been specifically asked about it and gave an answer which the Court found to be deliberately false.
There is an important difference between having a past and lying about that past.
Does Every Criminal Conviction Justify Dismissal?
Not necessarily.
A criminal record does not automatically give an employer the right to dismiss an employee.
The employer should consider the connection between the conviction and the employment. Relevant questions may include:
- Does the offence involve dishonesty, violence or breach of trust?
- How long ago did it occur?
- Is it relevant to the employee’s present responsibilities?
- Does the employee handle money, confidential information or valuable property?
- Is the employee required to satisfy statutory or regulatory standards?
- Did the employee lie or merely misunderstand the question?
- Would the employer still have hired the employee if the truth had been disclosed?
A minor and unrelated offence committed many years ago may carry little weight in some roles.
By contrast, a conviction involving theft from an employer may be highly material where the employee is applying for a position involving trust, compliance and responsibility for company assets.
The Industrial Court expressly recognised that a conviction does not automatically justify dismissal. What mattered was the deliberate concealment of a material conviction and its effect on the employment relationship.
Why Was the Employee’s Position Important?
The employee had been appointed as a Safety Officer.
The Court considered this a position requiring:
- integrity;
- compliance with rules;
- sound risk-management judgment; and
- the employer’s trust and confidence.
The previous offence was theft by a servant. In other words, it involved dishonesty within an employment relationship.
The Court found that the employer had unknowingly appointed someone to a position of responsibility after he had concealed a conviction directly relevant to workplace trust.
Had the previous offence been unrelated to the role, the outcome might have been different.
Context matters. An old traffic offence and a conviction for stealing from an employer are not necessarily treated alike.
Need Help with Employee Misrepresentation or Misconduct?
If you need help investigating employee misrepresentation, preparing a show cause letter or assessing whether disciplinary action is justified under Malaysian employment law, feel free to get in touch.
You can also explore Employment Law Malaysia: The Complete Guide for Employees and Employers (2026) for practical articles on workplace misconduct, disciplinary procedures and unfair dismissal.
Can Lying on a Job Application Amount to Misconduct?
Yes.
An employment relationship is built partly on the information provided during recruitment.
An employer may rely on representations concerning:
- qualifications;
- professional licences;
- employment history;
- reasons for leaving previous employment;
- disciplinary records;
- criminal history;
- medical fitness where relevant; and
- conflicts of interest.
A deliberate false statement about a material matter may amount to misrepresentation, dishonesty and serious misconduct.
In Ruth Chai Mei Hui v Berjaya Steel Product Sdn Bhd [2020] MELRU 476, referred to in the award, the Industrial Court recognised that dishonesty may irretrievably destroy the trust and confidence underlying an employment relationship.
Not every mistake on an application form will justify dismissal. The employer must still establish that the statement was false, made knowingly and sufficiently material to justify the disciplinary action taken.
There is quite a difference between getting your previous salary wrong by RM50 and inventing a degree you never attended university to obtain.
Related reading: Can You Be Fired for Lying During a Job Interview?
What If the Employer Discovers the Truth Years Later?
The discovery may still justify disciplinary action, particularly where the original representation influenced the decision to hire the employee.
However, the employer should investigate before acting.
It should establish:
- the exact question asked during recruitment;
- the answer given by the employee;
- whether the answer was objectively false;
- whether the employee understood the question;
- whether the information was material to the job;
- how the employer discovered the information; and
- whether dismissal would be proportionate.
The employee should be given an opportunity to explain.
For example, there may be issues concerning mistaken identity, an expunged or overturned conviction, uncertainty about how the question was phrased, or a genuine misunderstanding about whether a matter amounted to a charge or conviction.
An employer should verify the facts instead of relying on office gossip or a creative afternoon of Googling.
Was a Domestic Inquiry Conducted?
The employee argued that he had been terminated without a domestic inquiry.
The Court upheld the established employment law position that the absence of a domestic inquiry is not necessarily fatal to the employer’s case. The Industrial Court hears the dispute afresh and may consider the evidence presented by both parties.
This does not mean employers should skip a proper disciplinary process.
A fair investigation remains important because it helps the employer:
- verify the criminal record;
- avoid acting on inaccurate information;
- identify whether the employee deliberately lied;
- consider the employee’s explanation;
- assess the relevance of the offence; and
- determine a proportionate response.
Section 14 of the Employment Act 1955 also provides for disciplinary punishment for misconduct after due inquiry.
An employer who dismisses first and investigates later may create unnecessary evidential and procedural problems.
Was There Also a Mutual Termination?
Yes. This was a separate and important part of the decision.
The employer maintained that the parties had mutually agreed to end the employment relationship after the conviction was discovered.
The employee signed documents recording the termination and accepted seven days’ goodwill compensation. He later alleged that he had signed because the company threatened to withhold his salary.
However, the Court found that he had not proved coercion or duress.
His own witness confirmed that both parties had agreed to terminate the employment and that the subsequent letter recorded the agreed arrangement.
The Court therefore found that there was a genuine mutual termination in addition to finding that the concealed conviction constituted serious misconduct.
What Makes a Mutual Termination Valid?
A mutual termination must be genuinely consensual.
Calling a document a “Mutual Separation Agreement” does not magically make it voluntary.
The circumstances should show that:
- both parties understood the arrangement;
- the employee was not forced or improperly threatened;
- the terms were clearly recorded;
- the employee had an opportunity to consider the terms;
- any agreed payment was made; and
- the document reflected the parties’ genuine intention.
An agreement may be challenged if the employee’s consent was obtained through coercion, misrepresentation or undue pressure.
Employers should therefore avoid presenting an employee with a pre-prepared agreement and saying, “Sign now, or else.” That is not mutual agreement but rather an ultimatum in disguise.
Related reading: Can a Mutual Separation Scheme (MSS) Be Challenged in Malaysia? When Employees Can Sue Despite Signing an MSS
Practical Lessons for Employers
Before dismissing an employee for concealing a criminal record, employers should:
- retain the original application form;
- identify the exact representation made;
- verify the conviction through reliable evidence;
- consider whether it was material to the role;
- issue a clear show cause letter;
- allow the employee to explain;
- conduct a domestic inquiry where material facts are disputed;
- consider whether a lesser sanction is appropriate; and
- ensure the termination letter states the genuine reason relied upon.
If mutual separation is proposed, the employee should be given reasonable time to consider the agreement and obtain advice.
Practical Lessons for Employees and Job Applicants
Applicants should answer recruitment questions honestly.
If a question is unclear, ask for clarification rather than assuming the answer the employer would prefer to hear.
An applicant may also explain:
- how long ago the offence occurred;
- the circumstances surrounding it;
- evidence of rehabilitation;
- an otherwise clean employment history; and
- why the offence does not affect suitability for the role.
An uncomfortable explanation during an interview is usually easier to manage than an allegation of dishonesty after employment has begun.
Final Thoughts
Dinesh Kumar v Joe Green Precast does not establish that every employee with a criminal record may be dismissed.
Its more important lesson is about honesty during recruitment.
The employee was specifically asked whether he had been charged in court. He answered “N/A” despite a previous conviction for theft by a servant. The Court found that the omission was deliberate, material to his position and sufficiently serious to destroy the employer’s trust and confidence.
I personally believe that people can always move forward from past mistakes but concealing that mistake through a false declaration may create an entirely new one.
For more practical articles on workplace misconduct, disciplinary procedures and unfair dismissal, explore Employment Law Malaysia: The Complete Guide for Employees and Employers (2026)
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Industrial Court awards are fact-specific, and each matter depends on its employment documents, evidence and surrounding circumstances.
