Wednesday 24/December/2025 – 02:31 PM
The Supreme Administrative Court of the State Council confirmed that if the criminal court ruled on these acts with a final ruling that has the force of res judicata, it is not permissible for the disciplinary court, which is in the process of addressing the disciplinary aspect of these acts, to re-examine whether they are proven or not, given that it must adhere to what was stated regarding these acts in the criminal ruling.
Senior administrative
It is established by the ruling of this court that the principle of the legality of punishment is one of the principles recognized in the law. If the disciplinary authority takes the liberty of assessing what falls within the scope of disciplinary violations, then it is obligated to impose a punishment that the legislator had previously specified, and it is not permissible for it to replace it with another, whatever its motives and justifications for doing so, even if what it imposes on the employee is lighter than the prescribed punishment.
If the legislator specifies disciplinary punishments exclusively, then there is no way for the disciplinary authority to impose a punishment other than what is stipulated in the disciplinary punishments, and it becomes restricted, when the violation is proven, to imposing one of the stipulated penalties and not others, otherwise its behavior is unlawful and in violation of the law.
This came in a judicial ruling to dismiss an employee from his job, who was accused of joining a terrorist group, and the court amended the ruling issued against him, from punishing him with a fine 3 times his job salary, to a reduction to a job at the direct lower level, as the appeal was No. 48145 of 66 BC.
