Qualitative analysis of disciplinary penalties imposed under the Civil Servants Law No. 657 in the light of the supreme court decisions

This study aims to investigate the legality of disciplinary actions imposed by public administrations, in light of decisions rendered by the higher courts responsible for judicial review. The study also focuses on defining disciplinary actions, which have received limited coverage in academic scholarship. Within the scope of the study, the framework of public personnel management in the context of disciplinary law was discussed, the disciplinary acts included in the content of Law No. 657 were legally classified, and the extent to which and on what grounds disciplinary penalties were found unlawful in the decisions of the high courts regarding these disciplinary acts was investigated. The study concluded that the disciplinary actions included in the law were outdated, drafted using abstract concepts, and hindered the establishment of an effective disciplinary system. Furthermore, the assessment by judicial authorities found that the imposed disciplinary penalties were highly unlawful, with the highest level of unlawfulness occurring in the warning penalty and the lowest level of unlawfulness occurring in the suspension of promotion penalty. In the Council of State decisions examined in the study, it was determined that the reasons why the actions were deemed unlawful were the lack of proof of the action, mistakes in characterizing the action, punishments given for actions that were not contrary to disciplinary legislation, violation of the principle of typicality, restriction of the right of defense and initiation of proceedings as a result of incomplete/insufficient investigation. In the Constitutional Court decisions, it was determined that the disciplinary penalties were found unlawful, especially due to the violation of union rights and the right to freedom of expression.