The Federal Supreme Court ruled to cancel the decision of a government agency to end the service of a female citizen employee, after posting two videos on social media, which included a distress and complaint, as the court considered that the contested decision was accompanied by an overestimation in the punishment, and that the complainant’s complaint was not intended to lengthen or defame.
In the details, an employee of a government agency filed an administrative suit in which she specialized in her work, requesting the ruling to cancel the decision to end her service and return her to her work, to cancel the decision to deduct 10 days from her salary, and to spend her salary since stopping it until she returned to work, while spending the bonuses, incentives and rewards established, and combining The period of her work, from the termination of her service until her return to work, and her compensation for the damages sustained as a result of those decisions.
The employee said in her lawsuit that "a decision was issued to deduct 10 days from her salary, and she sought help from the conduct of her employer, but she considered this distress a violation that requires investigation, and accordingly she was suspended from work and then a decision was issued to end her service."
The first instance court ruled to dismiss the case, then the Court of Appeal ruled to reject the appeal submitted by the plaintiff, and she appealed the ruling to the Federal Supreme Court.
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court, addressed the dispute, decided to cancel the decision to terminate the prosecutor’s service and the effects thereof.
She emphasized that the right to complain is guaranteed by the law and protected by the Constitution, and for the exercise of this right, conditions and conditions, in the forefront of which are the complaint to the competent authority that has the right to remove the injustice and return the right to its owners, if the complaint was directed to other than the original competent authorities or rushed in terms outside the authority of accusations without evidence, then it She is lost, erred in her goal, and the complainant must be punished for disciplinary action, but at the same time, even if the disciplinary authority has an estimate of the gravity of the guilt, and the penalty that is appropriate for it without penalty in that, the areas for the legitimacy of this estimate should not be tainted by abuse of authority or excessive estimation of the penalty.
Concerning the plaintiff’s request to cancel the decision to deduct 10 days of her salary, the court upheld the conclusion of the first degree ruling, in what he spent rejecting the request to cancel this decision, borne out by his reasons, and also rejected the plaintiff’s request for compensation.