Page 66 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case Studies

It is essential to act impartially in the exercise of the powers granted
to the administration as well as in the conduct of public services. This
necessity arises particularly in the impartiality of the investigator during
the investigation of the acts alleged to have been committed by any public
official and requiring disciplinary action.
Case 1: In the Decision of the 12th Chamber of the Council of State dated
12/06/2014 and numbered E.2014/3085, K.2014/4911, it was understood
that an investigation was launched against the plaintiff on the grounds that
he had not come to work, and the investigator, who was the disciplinary
supervisor of the plaintiff, gave the plaintiff warning punishment. As per
Article 21/1 of the Regulation on Disciplinary Boards and Disciplinary
Supervisors, the disciplinary supervisors are capable of conducting
disciplinary investigations. Nevertheless, it was found out that allowing
the investigator, who was already assigned to carrying out a disciplinary
investigation concerning the alleged offence of the public official, to give
punishment in the capacity of disciplinary supervisor contradicted with
the principles of objectivity and impartiality. It was concluded that the
punishment given through the breach of the principles of objectivity and
impartiality was unlawful considering the fact that the plaintiff’s manager –
also the disciplinary supervisor– had personally conducted the disciplinary
investigation, prepared the official report by taking the testimony of
the witnesses, took the plaintiff’s statement and gave the disciplinary
punishment after making the legal assessment on the alleged offence.

Case 2: In the Decision of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State dated
16/06/2010 and numbered E. 2009/4595 E., 2010/5127, it was stated
that the Competition Board had the authority to determine whether the
competition on goods and services was violated and accordingly impose
administrative sanctions on individuals in compliance with the rules
provided in Law No. 4054. It was highlighted that having such nature,
the Board should operate in line with the principles of independence
and impartiality in proportion to the duties and powers exercised. As a
result of the review of the provisions of Articles 40-45 of the Law, it was
pointed out that the delegation consisting of the Board members and the
rapporteurs assigned during the investigation collected all the information
and documents related to the alleged violation of the subject Law, made
an evaluation, prepared an investigation report and eventually informed
the Board members and related parties thereon with additional written
opinions. Considering that in the present case, the Board member

65