The disciplinary penalties that may be imposed on civil servants, together with the acts and situations giving rise to them, are regulated in detail and in an order running from the lightest to the most severe in Article 125 of the Civil Servants Act No. 657. According to that order, one of the penalties of warning, reprimand, deduction from salary, suspension of incremental advancement or dismissal from the civil service may be applied to a civil servant depending on the act attributed to him. While the penalties of warning, reprimand and deduction from salary may be imposed directly by the disciplinary superiors, the penalty of suspension of incremental advancement depends on a decision of the Disciplinary Board or of the Governor. In the case of dismissal from the civil service, which is the most severe sanction, the deciding body is the high disciplinary board operating within the institution to which the civil servant is attached, which acts upon the request of the disciplinary superior. In the case of the penalties of warning, reprimand, deduction from salary and suspension of incremental advancement, the disciplinary investigation must be commenced within one month.
In the case of the penalty of dismissal from the civil service, disciplinary proceedings must be commenced within 6 months. Where these periods are not observed, the power to impose a penalty becomes time-barred.
An objection may be lodged against some of the penalties imposed on civil servants; in addition, all of the penalties may be made the direct subject of an action for annulment. For disciplinary penalties, which are administrative acts, to be regarded as lawful, they must correspond to the acts defined in the legislation, be established by the competent disciplinary superior, and comply with the limitation periods.
Disciplinary Penalties That May Be Imposed on Civil Servants
The disciplinary penalties applicable to civil servants are examined in detail below under five headings.
The Penalty of Warning
The warning, which is the lightest sanction, consists of notifying the civil servant in writing that he must be more attentive in his duties and conduct. A civil servant who acts indifferently or irregularly in performing the orders and duties assigned to him fully and on time, in complying with the procedures and principles laid down by the institution at the place of work, or in the protection, use and maintenance of official documents and of equipment relating to the duty may face this penalty. Failing to comply with the austerity measures determined by the institution, making an application or complaint in a manner contrary to procedure, displaying conduct incompatible with the dignity of a civil servant, acting contrary to the principle that the duty is to be carried out in cooperation, and showing indifference in the duty or acting irregularly produce the same result. In addition, arriving late for duty, leaving early or abandoning the place of duty without an excuse or without leave, and acting contrary to the prescribed dress code are among the situations requiring the penalty of warning.
The Penalty of Reprimand
The reprimand is a written notification to the civil servant that he has been at fault in his duties and conduct. Acting at fault in matters relating to the duty, adopting a disrespectful attitude towards a superior during the performance of the duty, and using official vehicles, equipment and similar property belonging to the State for personal purposes may require the application of this penalty. Likewise, treating colleagues, subordinate staff and members of the public badly, or knowingly failing to pay one’s debts and thereby causing legal proceedings to be brought, may be counted among the situations requiring a reprimand. The other situations in which this penalty may be imposed are set out in Article 125 of the Civil Servants Act No. 657.
The Penalty of Deduction from Salary
This penalty means that a deduction of between 1/30 and 1/8 is made from the civil servant’s gross salary. Intentionally failing to perform the orders and duties given fully and on time, failing to comply with the procedures and principles laid down by the institution at the place of duty, and failing to protect official documents, vehicles and equipment relating to the duty, neglecting their maintenance or misusing them require this sanction. Failing to attend duty for one or two days without an excuse, using official documents, vehicles and equipment belonging to the State for the purpose of obtaining personal benefit, and being verbally disrespectful to a superior during the performance of the duty also fall within the same scope. In addition, assisting in the unauthorised use of any area within the boundaries of the place of duty for meetings, ceremonies and similar purposes, behaving in a manner capable of undermining the esteem and confidence enjoyed by civil servants within the service, and making false or inaccurate statements in matters relating to the duty to persons to whom one owes an obligation are likewise met with the penalty of deduction from salary.
The Penalty of Suspension of Incremental Advancement
This sanction means that the civil servant’s advancement within his current grade is suspended for a period of 1 to 3 years according to the gravity of the act. Attending duty while intoxicated, consuming alcoholic drinks at the place of duty, failing to attend duty for 3 to 9 days without an excuse and without interruption, and obtaining a benefit by whatever means in connection with the duty may also lead to the application of that sanction. Engaging in humiliating or degrading acts and conduct towards a superior or towards subordinates, and drawing up reports and documents contrary to the truth, may produce the same result. Engaging in trade, carrying on other income-generating activities prohibited to civil servants, discriminating, and actually carrying on activity for the benefit or to the detriment of a political party also fall within the scope of this penalty. Further situations in which the penalty may be applied are regulated in Article 125 of the Civil Servants Act No. 657.
The Penalty of Dismissal from the Civil Service
This sanction, which means dismissal from office with no possibility of ever being appointed to the civil service again, is the most severe consequence in disciplinary law. Because it is the most severe disciplinary penalty, the situations requiring dismissal are enumerated in detail in the Act. Some of those situations are failing to attend duty without an excuse for a total of 20 days within one year and committing acts contrary to Act No. 5816 on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk. Acting in concert with terrorist organisations, assisting such organisations, using public facilities and resources, or allowing them to be used, in a manner supporting such organisations, and carrying out propaganda for them may likewise require that penalty.
We would emphasise that, where an act or situation that has been the subject of a disciplinary penalty is repeated before the penalties have been erased from the personnel file, a penalty one degree more severe may be applied. Where disciplinary penalties requiring a penalty of the same degree, but arising from acts and situations different from one another, are applied for the third time, a penalty one degree more severe is imposed.
For further detail on the subject, our note entitled “Erasure of a Civil Servant’s Disciplinary Penalty from the Record” may be consulted.
Superiors and Authorities Empowered to Impose Disciplinary Penalties
The penalties of warning, reprimand and deduction from salary are imposed by the disciplinary superiors. Who the disciplinary superior is, is determined by the Regulation on Disciplinary Superiors issued by each public institution. In the case of the penalty of suspension of incremental advancement, the disciplinary superior may establish the penalty only after obtaining the decision of the disciplinary board within the institution to which the civil servant is attached. Where the superior empowered to appoint the civil servant is subject to the provincial disciplinary board, this penalty is imposed by the Governors. As regards the penalty of dismissal from the civil service, the power belongs, upon the request of the disciplinary superior, to the high disciplinary board of the institution to which the civil servant is attached.
The disciplinary board and the high disciplinary board may not impose a penalty other than that requested by the disciplinary superior. The power of those boards is limited to accepting or rejecting the penalty requested. For details as to how the investigation is conducted, our note entitled “Disciplinary Investigations Concerning Civil Servants” may be consulted.
Furthermore, as we addressed in our note entitled “The Effect of Criminal Proceedings on a Civil Servant’s Disciplinary Investigation”, the decision delivered at the conclusion of criminal proceedings conducted in respect of a civil servant may in certain circumstances affect the disciplinary investigation. In such cases it becomes important whether the criminal proceedings were concluded before or after the disciplinary investigation.
Limitation Periods in Disciplinary Investigations
In respect of a civil servant who has committed an act requiring a penalty, action must be taken within the following periods running from the date on which that act became known:
- In the case of the penalty of dismissal from the civil service, disciplinary proceedings must be commenced within six months,
- In the case of the penalties of warning, reprimand, deduction from salary and suspension of incremental advancement, a disciplinary investigation must be commenced within one month
Where these periods are not observed, the power to impose a disciplinary penalty becomes time-barred.
In addition, if no disciplinary penalty has been imposed within two years at the latest from the date on which the acts and situations requiring the penalty were committed, the power to impose a penalty likewise becomes time-barred.
Objection and Action for Annulment Against a Disciplinary Penalty
A disciplinary penalty established in respect of a civil servant is in essence an administrative act and may be made the subject of the action for annulment we touched upon in our note entitled “Annulment of Administrative Acts”. While the bringing of that action is not made subject to any precondition, it is also possible, in respect of certain disciplinary penalties imposed on civil servants, to have recourse first to the objection procedure. By contrast, an administrative action must be brought directly against the penalty of dismissal from the civil service, which is the most severe sanction.
On the other hand, when the penalty is served on the civil servant against whom a disciplinary penalty has been imposed, the legal remedies available to him and the time limits relating to them must without fail be notified. Otherwise the act is defective as regards the “element of form” and is liable to be annulled by the court.
For details as to the outcomes of objections and the course of the action for annulment, our note entitled “Objection and Action for Annulment Against a Disciplinary Penalty Imposed on a Civil Servant” may be consulted.
Frequently Asked Questions
What penalty is imposed on a civil servant who engages in trade?
Article 125 of the Civil Servants Act No. 657 lists engaging in trade or carrying on other income-generating activities prohibited to civil servants among the situations requiring the penalty of suspension of incremental advancement. For that reason, the incremental advancement of a civil servant who engages in trade or in any other income-generating occupation may be suspended for a period of 1 to 3 years.
Within what period may an action be brought against a disciplinary penalty?
Since the establishment of a disciplinary penalty in respect of a civil servant constitutes an administrative act, an action may be brought before the administrative courts for the annulment of that act. The civil servant may apply to the administrative courts within the 60-day period for bringing an action, running from the date on which the act relating to the penalty was served on him.
May a person dismissed from the civil service be appointed again?
No. It is not possible for persons who have received the penalty of dismissal from the civil service subsequently to be appointed to the civil service again.
What penalty does the use of the institution’s vehicles and equipment for personal purposes require?
The use of official vehicles, equipment and similar property belonging to the State for personal purposes is listed in the Act among the situations requiring a reprimand. Where a laptop computer or a vehicle entrusted to a civil servant is used for personal purposes, a penalty of reprimand may follow.
May the whole of the salary be deducted under the penalty of deduction from salary?
No. Where this penalty is applied, a deduction of between 1/8 and 1/30 is made from the civil servant’s salary calculated on his gross remuneration; deduction of the whole of the salary is not in question.
What is the consequence of failing to attend duty for three consecutive days?
A civil servant’s failure to attend duty for between 3 and 9 days without an excuse and without interruption is one of the situations requiring the penalty of suspension of incremental advancement. Depending on the degree of gravity of the act, incremental advancement may be suspended for a period of 1 to 3 years.
Is representation by a lawyer mandatory in the administrative courts?
Apart from limited exceptions, there is no obligation to be represented by a lawyer; the position is the same before the administrative courts. However, the technical structure of administrative law legislation and the short and strict nature of the periods in the Administrative Procedure Act No. 2577 may produce consequences that are difficult to remedy where the process is conducted by persons who are not lawyers.
Independent Legal Assessment
In disciplinary law, the factor that determines the outcome is most often not the act itself but whether the investigation has been conducted in accordance with the proper procedure. Failure to afford the right of defence in accordance with the rules, the investigator’s lack of authority, a mismatch between the penalty and the act defined in the Act, and non-compliance with the conditions as to time limits are among the most common grounds for annulment decisions. For that reason, in preparing his defence the civil servant must focus not only on the merits of the incident but also on the formal validity of the process.
The degree of the penalty is a separate head of review. Moving up to a penalty one degree more severe on grounds of repetition is conditional upon the previous penalty not having been erased from the personnel file; aggravation without that condition being met renders the act defective.
In a concrete dispute, we recommend that the following headings be prioritised:
- Determining the date on which the act became known and checking whether the one-month and six-month commencement periods have been observed
- Examining whether the two-year period for imposing a penalty, running from the date on which the act was committed, has expired
- Verifying whether the authority establishing the penalty was competent under the relevant institution’s Regulation on Disciplinary Superiors
- Ensuring that, in the case of the penalty of suspension of incremental advancement, the decision of the disciplinary board was taken in accordance with the proper procedure
- Whether the request for a defence was served in accordance with the proper procedure and whether sufficient time was allowed for the defence
- Ensuring that the remedies and time limits were indicated in the notification, and verifying the basis on which repetition was applied
Independent Legal provides advisory services throughout the entire process in the field of civil service disciplinary law, from the preparation of the defence at the investigation stage to the conduct of actions for annulment brought against the penalty.