Disciplinary Investigation, Penalty, and Annulment Lawsuit for Public Officials

What is a Disciplinary Investigation?

It is an obligation for civil servants to perform their duties in accordance with laws, regulations, and service requirements. In cases where these obligations are violated, a disciplinary investigation may be initiated against the relevant civil servant. A disciplinary investigation is an administrative process carried out to ensure the order of public service and to guarantee that civil servants act in accordance with their duties. The purpose of this process is to determine whether the civil servant has committed any misconduct or engaged in behavior incompatible with their position. The Disciplinary actions requiring penalties for public officials are explicitly stated in the Civil Servants Law No. 657. According to Article 124 of Law No. 657, ‘In order to ensure the proper execution of public services, disciplinary penalties shall be imposed, depending on the nature and seriousness of the act, on those who fail to perform the duties imposed on them as civil servants by laws, Presidential decrees, and regulations either within the country or abroad, on those who neglect the obligations they are required to comply with, and on those who engage in prohibited acts.

What Are the Disciplinary Penalties?

The disciplinary penalties to be imposed on civil servants are explicitly listed in Article 125 of Law No. 657:

• Reprimand
• Warning
• Deduction from Salary
• Suspension of Grade Advancement
• Dismissal from Civil Service

Disciplinary penalties take effect from the date they are imposed and are enforced immediately. The deduction from salary penalty is applied at the beginning of the month following the date the penalty is imposed.

Reprimand Penalty

A reprimand is a written notification to the civil servant stating that they must be more careful in their duties and conduct. The acts and situations requiring a reprimand penalty are as follows:

• Showing negligence or acting irregularly in performing assigned orders and duties fully and on time, in complying with the procedures and principles determined by institutions at the workplace, and in the preservation, use, and maintenance of official documents, tools, and equipment related to the duty,
• Arriving late to work, leaving early, or abandoning the workplace without excuse or permission,
• Failing to comply with savings measures determined by the institution,
• Filing improper applications or complaints,
• Engaging in conduct or behavior unbecoming of the dignity of a civil servant,
• Showing negligence or indifference towards one’s duty or towards those receiving service,
• Violating the prescribed rules on attire and appearance,
• Engaging in behavior contrary to the principle of performing duties in cooperation.

Reproach Penalty

A reproach is a written notification to the civil servant stating that they have been at fault in their duties and conduct. The acts and situations requiring a reproach penalty are as follows:

• Acting negligently in performing assigned orders and duties fully and on time, in complying with the procedures and principles determined by institutions at the workplace, and in the preservation, use, and maintenance of official documents, tools, and equipment related to the duty,
• Failing to report, within the prescribed period, the income-generating continuous activities of their spouse or minor/incapacitated children to the institution,
• Behaving disrespectfully toward a superior during duty,
• Engaging in behavior outside of work that undermines the reputation and trustworthiness of a civil servant,
• Using official state vehicles, tools, or similar property for personal purposes,
• Losing official state documents, tools, or similar property,
• Mistreating colleagues, subordinate personnel, or service recipients,
• Harassing colleagues or service recipients verbally or physically,
• Engaging in immoral or indecent behavior at the workplace, writing inappropriate texts, or drawing symbols, pictures, or similar forms,
• Objecting to orders given,
• Intentionally failing to pay debts, causing legal action to be taken against them,
• Disturbing the peace, order, and work environment of the institution,
• Providing information or statements to the press, news agencies, or radio and television organizations without authorization.

Salary Deduction Penalty

A salary deduction is a penalty in which a civil servant’s gross monthly salary is reduced by an amount ranging from 1/30 to 1/8. The acts and situations requiring a salary deduction penalty are as follows:

• Intentionally: failing to carry out assigned orders and duties fully and on time, not complying with the procedures and principles established by the institution at the workplace, failing to protect, maintain, or misusing official documents, tools, and equipment related to the duty,
• Failing to report to work for one or two days without excuse,
• Using official state documents, tools, equipment, or similar items for personal gain,
• Providing false or misleading statements to persons they are obligated to inform regarding duty-related matters,
• Disrespecting a superior verbally during duty,
• Assisting in the unauthorized use of any place within the workplace boundaries for meetings, ceremonies, or similar purposes,
• Engaging in behavior within the service that undermines the reputation and trustworthiness of a civil servant.

Penalty of Suspension of Grade Advancement

Suspension of grade advancement is a penalty in which a civil servant’s progression within their current grade is halted for 1 to 3 years, depending on the severity of the act. For civil servants who are at the final steps of positions they can be promoted to due to their education level, in cases requiring the suspension of grade advancement, ¼ to ½ of their gross monthly salary is deducted, and in the event of a repeat offense, they are dismissed from their position. The acts and situations requiring the penalty of suspension of grade advancement are as follows:

• Coming to duty intoxicated, or consuming alcoholic beverages at the workplace,
• Failing to report to work for 3 to 9 consecutive days without excuse,
• Deriving any personal benefit in connection with their duty in any way,
• Engaging in humiliating or degrading acts or behavior toward a superior or subordinates,
• Using or allowing the unauthorized use of any place within the workplace boundaries for meetings, ceremonies, or similar purposes,
• Preparing false reports or documents,
• Engaging in trade or other income-generating activities prohibited for civil servants,
• Discriminating based on language, race, gender, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, or sect in the performance of duties, or acting to advantage or disadvantage particular individuals,
• Failing to submit asset declarations within the prescribed situations and periods,
• Disclosing information that is prohibited from being revealed,
• Insulting or threatening a superior, subordinates, colleagues, or service recipients,
• Exploiting diplomatic status to incur debts abroad beyond their ability to pay without a valid reason, damaging the reputation of the State through their conduct in repaying debts, or returning to the country without settling debts without a necessary cause,
• Intentionally failing to carry out assigned duties and orders,
• Engaging in activities that benefit or harm any political party.

Dismissal from Civil Service

Dismissal from civil service is the removal of a civil servant from their position with the consequence that they cannot be appointed to any civil service position in the future. The acts and situations requiring the penalty of dismissal from civil service are as follows:

• Disrupting the peace, order, and work discipline of institutions for ideological or political purposes; participating in actions such as boycotts, occupations, obstructing public services, slowing down work, or strikes, or collectively failing to report to duty for these purposes; instigating, encouraging, or assisting such actions,
• Printing, reproducing, distributing, or displaying any prohibited publications or declarations, posters, banners, tapes, or similar materials for political or ideological purposes within any part of the institution,
• Joining a political party,
• Failing to report to duty for a total of 20 days within a year without excuse,
• Failing to perform duties or orders given by superiors in matters related to war, state of emergency, or general disasters,
• Committing physical assault against superiors, subordinates, or service recipients,
• Engaging in disgraceful and shameful acts incompatible with the status of a civil servant,
• Disclosing confidential information without authorization,
• Harboring individuals sought for political or ideological actions within the workplace,
• Engaging in behavior abroad that damages the reputation of the State or undermines the dignity of the office,
• Committing acts contrary to Law No. 5816 on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk,
• Acting in coordination with terrorist organizations, assisting these organizations, using or allowing the use of public resources to support these organizations, or engaging in propaganda for these organizations.

Recurrence or Imposition of a Lesser Penalty

If a civil servant repeats an act or behavior that previously resulted in a disciplinary penalty within the period during which the penalty can be removed from their personnel file, a penalty one degree more severe is applied. For disciplinary penalties of the same degree imposed for separate acts or incidents, a penalty one degree more severe is applied upon the third occurrence.

For civil servants with a positive work record and who have received awards or certificates of achievement, a penalty one degree lighter may be applied.

Who Conducts the Disciplinary Investigation?

The disciplinary provisions for civil servants are regulated in Articles 124 to 135 of Law No. 657. The disciplinary investigation process consists of specific stages designed both to maintain public order and to safeguard the civil servant’s right to defense. According to Article 126 of Law No. 657, ‘Warnings, reprimands, and salary deductions are imposed by disciplinary supervisors; the penalty of suspension of grade advancement is imposed by the appointing authorities after the decision of the disciplinary board of the institution to which the civil servant is affiliated, and in cases based on the decisions of provincial disciplinary boards, by the governors.’

The same article further states: ‘The penalty of dismissal from civil service is imposed upon the request of the superiors, based on the decision of the high disciplinary board of the institution to which the civil servant is affiliated. The disciplinary board and the high disciplinary board do not have the authority to impose a separate penalty; they can only accept or reject the proposed penalty. In case of rejection, the appointing authorities are free to impose another disciplinary penalty within 15 days.

Statute of Limitations

There are limitation periods of one month, six months, and two years for disciplinary investigations. These periods are regulated in Article 127 of Law No. 657. Accordingly, the time begins from the date on which the acts or situations requiring a disciplinary investigation are discovered:

• For penalties of warning, reprimand, salary deduction, and suspension of grade advancement, a disciplinary investigation must be initiated within one month,
• In the case of the penalty of dismissal from civil service, if a disciplinary prosecution is not initiated within six months, the authority to impose the disciplinary penalty becomes barred by the statute of limitations.

If a disciplinary penalty is not imposed within two years from the date the act or situation requiring the penalty was committed, the authority to impose the penalty becomes barred by the statute of limitations.

Decision Period

Disciplinary investigations must be concluded within a certain period. These periods are specified in Article 128 of Law No. 657. Accordingly:

• Disciplinary supervisors are required to impose warnings, reprimands, and salary deduction penalties within 15 days from the date the investigation is completed.
• In cases requiring the penalty of suspension of grade advancement, the investigation file is submitted to the authorized disciplinary board to issue its decision within 15 days. The disciplinary board announces its decision based on the investigation documents within 30 days from the date it receives the file.
• For the penalty of dismissal from civil service, the investigation file conducted by the disciplinary supervisors is submitted to the high disciplinary board of the institution to which the civil servant is affiliated, and this board must reach a decision within a maximum of six months from the submission date.

Right to Defense

The right to defense is one of the fundamental safeguards of a disciplinary investigation. A disciplinary penalty cannot be imposed on a civil servant without first obtaining their defense. A civil servant who fails to submit a defense within the period of at least seven days given by the investigator or the authorized disciplinary board, or on the specified date, is considered to have waived their right to defense.

Appeal

A civil servant who has been subjected to a disciplinary penalty has the right to appeal. This matter is regulated in Article 135 of Law No. 657. Accordingly:

• Disciplinary penalties of warning, reprimand, and salary deduction imposed by disciplinary supervisors can be appealed to the disciplinary board, while the penalty of suspension of grade advancement can be appealed to the high disciplinary board.
• The period for filing an appeal is seven days from the date the decision is notified to the concerned civil servant. Disciplinary penalties not appealed within this period become final.
• The appellate authorities are required to issue their decision within thirty days from the date they receive the appeal petition along with the decision and its attachments.
• If the appeal is accepted, the disciplinary supervisors may review the decision and reduce or completely revoke the imposed penalty.

Annulment Lawsuit

Civil servants who have been subjected to a disciplinary penalty have the right to file an annulment lawsuit against this action before administrative judicial authorities. This right is guaranteed by both the Civil Servants Law No. 657 and the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577. A civil servant may file an annulment lawsuit at the competent administrative court within 60 days from the date the disciplinary penalty is notified. This period is a forfeiture period. However, the relevant penalty must be final; an annulment lawsuit cannot be filed for a penalty that has not yet become final. A request for suspension of execution may also be made in the lawsuit; in this case, the court may issue a temporary suspension decision after evaluating whether the implementation of the action would cause irreparable harm.

The court reviews the legality, procedural compliance, and fairness of the action. If the annulment decision is granted, the disciplinary penalty is nullified in all its effects; it is removed from the civil servant’s record, its consequences are reversed, and, if necessary, any rights that were deprived are restored.

Precedent Decisions

“Regarding the case of the plaintiff, who served as a teacher in a secondary school, the annulment of the decision of the Ministry of National Education High Disciplinary Board to impose the penalty of dismissal from civil service in accordance with the Civil Servants Law was requested. In the case at hand, it was understood that a proposal had been made to penalize the plaintiff with dismissal from civil service, and that the General Directorate of Human Resources of the Ministry of National Education had requested the plaintiff’s defense by clearly specifying the alleged act in its dated letter, to which the plaintiff responded with a written defense. In this case, since it is understood that the defendant administration requested the plaintiff’s defense in accordance with procedure and that the plaintiff indeed submitted a defense, it is concluded that the plaintiff was afforded the procedural right to defend themselves. Therefore, the merits of the case must be examined and a decision made.” (Council of State, 12th Chamber, 2020/1528 E., 2020/3135 K., 12.10.2020)

“In the case of the plaintiff, a police officer, it is understood that he was initially penalized with a ’12-month long suspension’ under Article 7/A-2 of the Police Organization Disciplinary Regulation, but since he had previously committed the same offense, Article 14 of the same Regulation was applied, resulting in a dismissal from the profession by the decision of the High Disciplinary Board of the General Directorate of Security. According to the aforementioned legal provision, for the provisions on recidivism to be applied, it is sufficient that a disciplinary penalty for the same type of offense has been previously imposed and that the said disciplinary penalty has been notified to the concerned person and has become final administratively; it is not required that it be final judicially, nor does the legislation impose such a condition. In this case, since there is no illegality in applying the recidivism provisions in the action subject to the case, there is no legal basis for annulling the decision in this respect.” (Council of State, 12th Chamber, 2014/424 E., 2014/4578 K., 04.06.2014)

“In the case filed for the annulment of the disciplinary action imposing dismissal from civil service on the plaintiff pursuant to Article 125/E-g of Law No. 657 on the grounds that the plaintiff engaged in disgraceful and shameful acts incompatible with the status of a civil servant; it was understood that the plaintiff, while serving as an enforcement officer at the Ulus-Site Tax Office, misappropriated a total of … liras collected from the taxpayer in three installments with receipts entrusted to him but not submitted to the Tax Office, and that the penalty in question was imposed for this reason. Although the plaintiff was tried for the same offense at the Ankara 5th High Criminal Court, it was determined that the nature of the offense constituted fraud and, pursuant to Article 503/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, a heavy fine of … liras was imposed, and its execution was deferred by the decision dated … and numbered ….

Although the plaintiff requested annulment of the disciplinary action on the grounds that the nature of the offense he committed had changed and the penalty was deferred, this claim was found to lack legal basis under Article 48/A-5 of Law No. 657. Moreover, even if the legal characterization of the offense attributed to the plaintiff changed, the offense remains disgraceful, so the outcome would not change. Based on these reasons, the Ankara 3rd Administrative Court rejected the case by its decision dated … and numbered ….

It was further understood that, due to the ongoing criminal proceedings for the same act, the Supreme Court General Assembly of Criminal Chambers, by its decision dated … and numbered …, determined that the act constituted the offense of abuse of trust subject to complaint under Article 508 of the Turkish Penal Code and that there was no properly filed complaint within the statutory period, leading to the dismissal of the criminal case against the plaintiff. Considering this new legal situation arising from the criminal court’s decision while imposing the disciplinary penalty, it was deemed equitable to impose a new penalty. Accordingly, the Council’s decision dated 24.06.1998 and numbered 2373, which annulled the prior decision, was based on this rationale.

“In the case at hand, the defendant administration argued that, according to Article 127 of Law No. 657, the statute of limitations for imposing disciplinary penalties is regulated, and although our Council’s annulment decision suggested that another penalty appropriate to the plaintiff’s act could be imposed, it was claimed that this would not be possible under the cited provision and that the plaintiff’s act would remain unpunished, requesting a correction of our Council’s decision.

According to Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, entitled ‘Consequences of Decisions,’ administrations are obliged to take action or implement decisions within thirty days from the notification of the Council of State, Regional Administrative Courts, administrative courts, or tax courts’ decisions regarding the merits or suspension of execution, as applicable. Therefore, if the administrative court issues a decision following the annulment, and the administration imposes the disciplinary penalty corresponding to the plaintiff’s act of abuse of trust, as established by the criminal court decision, within the thirty-day period, it cannot be said that this new action, carried out as required by the judicial decision after completing judicial stages, would be subject to the statute of limitations under Article 127 of Law No. 657.

Moreover, an application for correction of decisions issued by the Council of State’s Chambers or General Assemblies of Administrative or Tax Chambers is only permissible if the reasons listed in Article 54 of Law No. 2577 exist.

Since the reasons for correction raised by the applicant do not correspond to any of the reasons specified in the mentioned article, the request for correction, lacking legal basis, was rejected.” (Council of State, 8th Chamber, 1998/6475 E., 1999/222 K., 03.02.1999)

Lawyer. Gökhan AKGÜL & Lawyer. Züleyha APAYDIN