The Federal Supreme Court affirmed that if the employee breaches his duties, his innocence does not prevent him from disciplinary accountability, if the patent is based on insufficient or suspicion of evidence or on a procedural reason, but if the patent is based on the denial of the incident and the lack of proof, the disciplinary authorities shall be bound to rule. A patent issued in respect of criminal sentences, without any other orders and decisions issued by the investigating authorities.
In a recent case, the court refused to demand that an employee be compensated for his arbitrary dismissal, and that his salary be paid for his suspension, after he was charged with stealing money from his employer, and later the case was kept administratively.
The court affirmed that insufficient evidence does not permanently lift the charge against the employee and does not preclude disciplinary accountability.If a decision is issued by the Public Prosecution to save the papers administratively, this does not prevent disciplinary prosecution for breaching the requirements of the post.
An employee filed a lawsuit in which his employer sued his employer, demanding that the court be obliged to pay him 248,656 dirhams and 300,000 dirhams in compensation for damages incurred as a result of his imprisonment for two months and seven days, depriving him from joining another job, and the legal benefit of 9% from the date of claim until payment.
He said that «he joined the work of the defendant, and was accused with others in the case of embezzlement of funds, and was suspended from his work, and was later saved the case administratively, so he is entitled to full pay for the period of suspension until the establishment of this case».
He added that «he was arbitrarily dismissed, so he deserves compensation for this chapter, as well as a warning allowance of one month of his salary, and also entitled to a leave allowance for two years, in addition to the period of suspension of work, and the end of service and return ticket, in addition to compensation for his suspension "For work and his imprisonment unlawfully."
The court ordered the employer to pay the plaintiff an amount of 97,216 dirhams, pay a return ticket allowance, and refused any other requests.Then the Court of Appeal amended the sentencing amount to 44,199 dirhams, and upheld the first ruling otherwise.
The plaintiff did not accept this, and he appealed the cassation verdict to reject his requests for entitlement to his salary for the period of suspension, warning and arbitrary dismissal, based on the fact that his termination was for disciplinary reasons, while the Public Prosecution decided to save the papers administratively on the charges against him. Suspension from work and disciplinary dismissals.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, explaining that the strength of the disciplinary crime is the breach of the employee's duties, which may be available despite the employee's acquittal criminally of the act attributed to him, if the patent is based on insufficient evidence or doubt or for a procedural reason, in this The employee shall not be indicted at all times. The patent shall not preclude disciplinary accountability. If the patent is criminally based on the denial of the incident, the disciplinary authorities shall abide by the criminal judgment issued by the patent.
The court concluded that he was not entitled to compensation for the disciplinary dismissal, paid salary for the period of suspension and warning allowance, and amended the amount of the end-of-service gratuity and leave balance to 56,173 dirhams.
- The employee filed a lawsuit demanding disbursement
His salary for the period of his suspension after the administrative filing of the case.