What is Dismissal from Public Service Due to Crime and Punishment?
The circumstances under which a civil servant’s employment is terminated are regulated under Article 98 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 as follows:
“Civil servants shall cease to hold office in the following cases:
a) Dismissal from civil service in accordance with the provisions of this Law;
b) It is subsequently understood that they do not meet any of the requirements for appointment to civil service, or they lose any of these requirements during their service;
c) Resignation from civil service;
ç) Retirement upon request, reaching the age limit, disability (…) or similar reasons;
d) Death.”
Pursuant to the cited provision, dismissal from civil service due to crime and punishment constitutes one of the reasons falling under the situation where “it is later understood that the civil servant does not meet any of the requirements for appointment, or loses any of these requirements during service.”
What Are the Conditions for Dismissal from Public Service Due to Crime and Punishment?
With regard to this matter, crimes and penalties that constitute an obstacle to civil service are listed under Article 48/5 of Law No. 657 as follows:
“Even if the periods specified in Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code have elapsed; a sentence of imprisonment for one year or more for an intentionally committed crime, or even if pardoned, crimes against the security of the state, crimes against the constitutional order and its functioning, (…) embezzlement, extortion, bribery, theft, fraud, forgery, abuse of trust, fraudulent bankruptcy, bid rigging, rigging the performance of obligations, laundering of assets derived from crime, or smuggling offenses…”
In addition, it is necessary to mention three important principles adopted in Law No. 657 regarding crimes and penalties that constitute an obstacle to civil service:
- Negligent offenses do not constitute an obstacle to civil service, regardless of the severity of the penalty.
- A person who is sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more due to an intentionally committed crime shall not be admitted to civil service.
- In the event of a conviction for crimes that constitute an obstacle to civil service, the nature of the offense itself—regardless of the severity of the penalty—constitutes a barrier to civil service.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What Is the Effect of the Deletion of a Criminal Record on Dismissal from Public Service?
The deletion of a criminal record does not ensure that a person dismissed from public service will be reappointed; therefore, it is not possible for the individual concerned to return to civil service.
2.What Is the Effect of the Suspension of a Prison Sentence on Dismissal from Public Service?
The suspension of a prison sentence is a decision whereby the court conditionally refrains from enforcing the imprisonment in a correctional facility. Accordingly:
● If the suspended prison sentence is one year or more, the person shall not be admitted to civil service; if already a civil servant, their employment shall be terminated.
● If the suspended prison sentence is less than one year and relates to offenses that do not constitute a barrier to civil service, the person shall not be dismissed; however, during the execution period of the judgment—namely, throughout the probation period determined in the suspension decision—the individual shall be temporarily removed from duty.
● If the suspended prison sentence relates to the offenses mentioned above that constitute a barrier to civil service, it shall prevent civil service regardless of the length of the sentence.
3. What Is the Prohibition on Serving as a Civil Servant During the Execution of a Sentence?
As stipulated in Article 53/1-a of the Turkish Penal Code, a person cannot serve as a civil servant during the execution of a prison sentence, regardless of the nature of the offense or the length of the sentence.
4. Is a Civil Servant Dismissed for Negligent Offenses?
As mentioned above, in cases of negligent offenses, a civil servant is not dismissed regardless of the severity of the penalty; therefore, negligent offenses do not constitute an obstacle to civil service.
Some Council of State Decisions Regarding Dismissal from Public Service Due to Crime and Punishment
- “In the present case; it has been understood from the examination of the file that the plaintiff, who was a civil servant at … Vocational Health High School, was sentenced to 1 year and 3 months of imprisonment as a result of being tried for the offense of ‘causing death and injury by negligence,’ and that he informed the administration on the same date, by petition, that he would be in prison as of 19.2.1997 for the execution of this sentence. Thereupon, on the grounds that he had lost the condition set forth in Article 48/A-4 of Law No. 657, his duty was terminated by an approval dated 14.3.1997 pursuant to Article 98/b of the same Law. In this situation, the procedures to be applied to civil servants who are subject to criminal prosecution by courts, or who are detained or taken into custody for any offense, are regulated under Article 137 and the following provisions of Law No. 657. Accordingly, since the plaintiff was tried for a negligent offense and, during the execution of the 1 year and 3 months imprisonment sentence imposed as a result, action should have been taken in accordance with the aforementioned provisions and he should have been reinstated after the execution of the sentence, the administrative act terminating his duty pursuant to Article 98/b of Law No. 657, on the grounds that he did not meet the condition in Article 48/A-4, has been found to be unlawful. On the other hand, although paragraph A/4 of Article 48 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 stipulates that ‘not being deprived of public rights’ is among the general conditions required for appointment to civil service, the criminal court decision underlying the contested administrative act does not contain a separate provision depriving the plaintiff of public rights. Moreover, the restriction on the exercise of civil rights mentioned in the court decision subject to appeal is limited to the duration of the sentence. Since such a restriction no longer exists thereafter, the reasoning of the decision has also been found to be unfounded in this respect.” (Council of State 12th Chamber, Decision dated 11.10.1999, E. 1997/3319, K. 1999/1785)
- ‘’Dosyanın incelenmesinden; davacı hakkında düzenlenen … günlü ve … sayılı soruşturma raporuyla; ….Ağır Ceza Mahkemesince verilen … günlü ve
E:…,K:… sayılı kararla davacının 17 yaşında olan öğrencisiyle cebir , tehdit ve hile olmaksızın cinsel ilişkide bulunduğu, aynı suçun birden fazla işlenmiş olduğu, gerekçesiyle davacının 1 yıl 10 ay 15 gün hapis cezası aldığı ve Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunun 231/5 maddesi uyarınca hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılmasına dair verilen ve kesinleşmiş bulunan karara atıfta bulunularak davacının fiili disiplin yönünden, hakkında 1702 sayılı olup ilk ve ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin terfi ve tecziyelerine ilişkin özel düzenlemeleri içeren yasanın 27/1 maddesinde öngörülen “talebeye karşı muallimlik sıfatıyla telif edilemeyen iffetsizliği sabit olma kapsamında değerlendirilerek meslekten çıkarma cezası teklif edildiği ve ceza mahkemesi kararında yer alan sanık mağdure ve tanıkların beyanları ve bilirkişi değerlendirmelerinin incelenmesinden, Telekominikasyon İdaresi Başkanlığından celp edilen HTS raporlarından davacı ve öğrencisinin gece gündüz birçok defa kesintisiz ve karşılıklı olarak telefon görüşmeleri ve mesajlaşmalarının bulunması ve davacının savunması içeriğinde yer alan beyanların değerlendirilmesinden davacıya isnad edilen ve 1702 sayılı Yasada karşılığını bulan fiilinin sübut bulduğu sonucuna varılmakta olup, anılan Yasanın 27/1 maddesi uyarınca tesis edilen işlemde hukuka aykırılık görülmemiştir.’’ (Danıştay 12. Daire, 25.05.2012 Tarihli, 2011/9670 Esas, 2012/3553 Karar nolu karar) - “From the examination of the case file; it is understood that the plaintiff, having successfully passed the written and oral examinations for the position of enforcement and protection officer, started training at the … Penal Execution Institution Training Center as of 20.07.2012. In the security investigation and archival research conducted about him, it was determined that a public case had been filed before the … Criminal Court of First Instance for the offenses of ‘resisting a public officer, assault, openly insulting to one’s face, aggressive drunkenness, and damage to public property.’ As a result of the trial, by the decision of the … Criminal Court of First Instance dated … and numbered E:…, K:…, the plaintiff was sentenced to ‘1 year of imprisonment’ for the offense of ‘resisting a public officer’; it was decided that no penalty should be imposed for the offense of ‘aggressive drunkenness’ due to the statute of limitations; and that the cases regarding insult and injury should be dismissed due to the complainant’s withdrawal of the complaint. Furthermore, it was decided to defer the announcement of the judgment, and this decision became final on 30/12/2008 without being appealed. Subsequently, by the decision dated 07.01.2013 and numbered 2013/4 of the … Judicial First Instance Court Justice Commission, it was concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the requirement of a favorable security investigation, and therefore his appointment was deemed inappropriate; this decision was sent to the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses. Following the review, since the plaintiff’s security investigation was considered negative, an administrative act dated 18.01.2013 and numbered 7772 was established stating that it was not possible to appoint him either openly or as a candidate. Upon this, the present case was filed seeking the annulment of these administrative acts.” (Council of State 12th Chamber Presidency, Decision dated 17.09.2015, E. 2015/2238, K. 2015/4853)
- “In the present case, considering that the offense of desertion is classified as a purely military offense pursuant to the decision of the Military … Unification of Jurisprudence Board, and given the nature of purely military offenses as explained above, as well as the fact that such offenses are not listed under Article 48/A-5 of Law No. 657, which regulates crimes constituting an obstacle to civil service; it is not possible to accept that prison sentences imposed by Military Courts for purely military offenses constitute an obstacle to appointment to public service within the scope of Article 48/A-5 of Law No. 657. Accordingly, since the plaintiff had a finalized conviction of 10 months’ imprisonment rendered by a Military Court for the offense of desertion committed during his military service, the administrative act subject to the case—terminating his employment pursuant to Article 98/b of the same Law on the grounds that he lost the condition set forth in Article 48/A-5, namely not having been sentenced to more than 6 months of imprisonment as required for entry into civil service—has been found to be unlawful. In this context, although it is understood during the adjudication of the case filed for the annulment of the dismissal that the required imprisonment threshold for entry into civil service was increased from 6 months to 1 year, and although the reasoning of the Administrative Court’s decision—annulling the contested act on the basis that the legislative amendment was in favor of the plaintiff—is not legally sound, the outcome of the decision is, in substance, appropriate.” (Council of State 12th Chamber, Decision dated 24.06.2011, E. 2009/1922, K. 2011/3449)
