Minor punishment for major crime is not acceptable

The administration is meant to serve the people of the country. Alongside this, people also expect courteous behavior from the officials of the administration. However, when allegations of inappropriate and anti-public behavior are raised against them, the government has no choice but to be embarrassed.

According to the Ministry of Public Administration, over the past 10 years (from 2014 to 2024), 351 officials have been accused of inappropriate and anti-public behavior. Among them, 41 have received major penalties, 140 have received minor penalties, and the remaining 170 have been exonerated from the allegations.

Officials in the public administration are being punished for various offenses, including abuse of power, embezzlement of public funds, moral degradation, negligence of duty, failing to report to work after leave, irregular attendance, traveling abroad without permission, writing in newspapers and on Facebook, and involvement in irregularities and corruption. Some of them are receiving minor penalties for major offenses, while others are getting severe punishments for minor offenses.

The issue is that, under the previous employment regulations, there was no possibility of retaining someone in their job if corruption charges were proven. However, the new regulations formulated in 2018 allow for the imposition of minor penalties on those found guilty of corruption. As a result, an investigating officer can choose to give a minor penalty for any offense. This discretion means that the severity of the punishment often varies, considering that an investigation is ongoing against a particular official.

In some cases, even though minor penalties were given for major offenses, the President has pardoned their punishments after they appealed for reconsideration. There are many instances where allegations of political influence have been raised. Typically, if a complaint is lodged against an official, it is taken into consideration, and a departmental case is initiated. Initially, a preliminary investigation is conducted to ascertain the validity of the complaint. This is because initiating a departmental case requires following a specific procedure.

This process includes hearings and site inspections. Experts believe that confining actions to departmental procedures alone does not reduce the rate of irregularities among government officials. The reality is that if crimes are not properly judged, the incidence of crime continues to increase. Therefore, in addition to departmental cases, exemplary punishments under conventional law should also be enforced against them.

We have seen that even after proving guilt, the majority of officials have been given disciplinary punishments such as reprimands. Despite evidence of committing offenses deserving major penalties, minor penalties have been imposed. If action is not taken against such anti-public behaviors, the government's affirmative actions become questionable, which is undesirable. There is no alternative but for the relevant authorities to become more vigilant in this regard.