Does the Defense Taken by an Inspector in a Disciplinary Investigation Affect the Defense?
In the process of a disciplinary investigation carried out against a public official, if the defense is taken by an inspector appointed by the Board of Inspection or by an investigator appointed by the relevant administration, is it necessary to take the defense of the person concerned again?
First of all,
In order for a disciplinary penalty to be imposed under Article 28 of the Civil Servants Disciplinary Regulation, is it necessary to take the defense of the person concerned again? While it is stated that it is mandatory to open the investigation, it is stipulated that the investigation in question must be carried out by an appointed investigator or an inspector/auditor. In the following article, the working procedures of these appointed persons are regulated in detail and broad powers are given, such as accessing information and documents related to the investigation and listening to the person being investigated and witnesses. However, it was stated that investigators and inspectors do not have authority on these two points, "except for the authority to request a defense and impose disciplinary punishment." Article 30 of the same Regulation regulates in detail how the defense process should be. Accordingly, disciplinary punishment cannot be given without taking a defense, and it is stipulated that the defense will be requested by the disciplinary chief at the last stage of the investigation process and that the defense will be requested by stating in the defense letter the allegations against the relevant person, the evidence on which these allegations are based, the legal characterization of the alleged acts and which of the acts listed in Article 125 of Law No. 657 fall within the scope. In its decision dated 30.10.2024 and numbered K:2024/57; It has been clearly emphasized that in disciplinary investigations carried out against public officials within the scope of the Civil Servants Law and the Civil Servants Disciplinary Regulation, the defense must be requested by the authorized disciplinary chief at the last stage of the investigation process and in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Regulation, that investigators do not have the authority to request a defense, and that the fact that a statement is made by investigators under the name of defense does not mean that the right of defense of the relevant person has been duly exercised.
Regarding a similar application to the Ombudsman Institution on June 16. In a decision dated 2026; "Since the applicant's defense was taken only by the Chief Inspector who conducted the investigation, and on the other hand, before the disciplinary penalty was given, the competent disciplinary chief did not ask for his defense in accordance with the procedure stipulated in Article 30 of the Civil Servants Disciplinary Regulation, so it was not possible to say that the applicant was duly exercised of his right to defense." It was decided to recommend that the defense should be taken by the competent authority.
When all these provisions are evaluated together, it is evaluated that the statements taken by the investigator or inspectors during the investigation phase do not constitute a defense.