Under the Turkish Civil Servants Law No. 657, dismissal or removal from civil service is a sanction applied where a person subsequently loses any of the qualifications required to serve as a civil servant. In other words, if one of the conditions required for appointment to public service (for example, having no disqualifying criminal record) later ceases to exist, the person may be dismissed from civil service. As a rule, this measure becomes final by decision of the Disciplinary Board or the High Disciplinary Board.
In this article, we examine in detail the grounds for dismissal from civil service, the point at which the process becomes final, disqualifying offences, the effects of different types of criminal penalties, matters concerning criminal records, and the legal remedies available against a dismissal decision. For legal assistance, you may contact the expert team at Bektaş Law Office.
What Is Dismissal or Removal from Civil Service?
Dismissal or removal from civil service is an institution defined under Article 98 of Law No. 657. Accordingly, dismissal from civil service refers to the termination of a civil servant’s public employment where the individual subsequently loses one of the qualifications required for admission to civil service, or where it is later discovered that such qualifications were never met in the first place. For example, these rules may apply where a person is convicted of an offence committed during service, or where a circumstance concealed at the time of appointment later comes to light. The penalty of dismissal from civil service is generally imposed by high disciplinary boards within the framework of Article 125 of Law No. 657. If such decision is lawful, the individual’s status as a civil servant is completely terminated. In this context, dismissal takes effect once the decisions rendered following a disciplinary investigation conducted with due regard to reasonable defence rights and procedural safeguards become final.
When Does Dismissal from Civil Service Become Final
A dismissal from civil service becomes final once the decision of the relevant disciplinary board is finalized. Following a disciplinary investigation, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the High Disciplinary Board or another competent board is rendered as a final administrative act. A finalized disciplinary decision means that the civil service relationship has been terminated.
An annulment action may be filed directly against this decision in accordance with the applicable procedure. No separate administrative objection mechanism is предусмотрed against the penalty of dismissal from civil service; therefore, an annulment lawsuit must be filed before the administrative courts within 60 days from the notification of the decision. Such actions are generally heard by the administrative court in the place where the civil servant last served. The administrative court reviews the allegation that the act is unlawful; if it finds the decision lawful, it dismisses the claim, and if it finds otherwise, it annuls the act. Accordingly, the moment at which the decision becomes final, and thus the date on which civil service status effectively ends, is the date on which the approval of the disciplinary board is officially notified.
What Are the Offences That Bar Entry into Civil Service
Article 48/A-5 of Law No. 657 identifies offences that constitute an obstacle to civil service based on two main criteria: the duration of the sentence and the nature of the offence.
The first criterion concerns custodial sentences imposed for intentional offences. Persons who have been finally convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more for an intentionally committed offence cannot be admitted to civil service; if already serving as civil servants, their public employment comes to an end. For example, a person convicted of violating the privacy of private life and sentenced to one year of imprisonment would fall within this prohibition even if the sentence were converted into a judicial fine.
The second criterion concerns the nature of the offence itself. Certain offences, traditionally referred to in Turkish law as “dishonourable offences,” prevent a person from entering civil service regardless of the amount of the sentence or the manner in which it is executed, and if the person is already a civil servant, such conviction may lead to termination of service. Accordingly, a person convicted of any of the following offences cannot be appointed as a civil servant, or if already employed as such, their service shall be terminated:
- Offences against the constitutional order and its functioning (Articles 309–316 of the Turkish Penal Code);
- Bribery, embezzlement, and extortion by a public official;
- Property offences such as theft, fraud, forgery, and breach of trust;
- Bid rigging or interference with the performance of public procurement contracts;
- Laundering of assets derived from crime;
- Smuggling offences;
- Fraudulent bankruptcy and all forms of forgery (including forgery of official documents, private documents, money, seals, etc.).
By their nature, these offences are considered incompatible with the trust and honour required by public service. The law provides that conviction for such offences constitutes a permanent bar “even if pardoned,” regardless of the amount of the sentence. In summary, penalties imposed for negligent offences are generally not considered a bar to civil service, whereas intentionally committed offences resulting in imprisonment of more than one year, as well as the catalogue offences listed above, are considered definitive obstacles to civil service.
Is a Civil Servant Dismissed If the Prison Sentence Is Suspended
The consequences of a suspended prison sentence under Article 51 of the Turkish Penal Code may also affect civil servant status. Since a suspended sentence still constitutes a conviction, it may be regarded as a disqualifying conviction for purposes of civil service. In summary:
- If the suspended sentence is one year or more: the person cannot be admitted to civil service, and if already serving, their civil service shall be terminated. Since a suspension order is still based on a conviction, reinstatement to civil service is generally not possible in such cases.
- If the suspended sentence is less than one year and does not concern a disqualifying offence: dismissal from civil service may not be imposed. However, the civil servant may be temporarily suspended from duty during the probation period. If this period is completed without incident, the person may return to service.
- If the suspended sentence concerns an offence that bars civil service: even if the sentence is suspended, where the offence falls within the catalogue of disqualifying offences (such as bribery, embezzlement, theft, etc.), it constitutes an obstacle to civil service regardless of duration. In such case, the person cannot continue to serve as a civil servant and cannot be appointed.
Accordingly, a suspended sentence may still have adverse consequences for civil service status. In particular, sentences of one year or more, as well as convictions for catalogue offences, may result in dismissal from civil service even if the sentence has been suspended.
Is a Civil Servant Dismissed in the Event of a Deferred Pronouncement of Judgment (HAGB)
A decision on the deferred pronouncement of judgment (HAGB) under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the sentence imposed on the accused not to produce legal consequences during the probation period. If the relevant conditions are satisfied, the judgment is never formally pronounced and the case is dismissed. For this reason, an HAGB decision is, as a rule, not treated as a final conviction and therefore does not ordinarily constitute an obstacle to civil service. In other words, a criminal accusation resulting in an HAGB decision cannot directly serve as a ground for dismissal from civil service.
However, one important point must be noted: HAGB affects only the criminal consequences of the act; the underlying conduct may still be regarded as having occurred. Therefore, in administrative disciplinary law, the same act may still be evaluated as conduct incompatible with the dignity and status of civil service, and a separate disciplinary sanction may be imposed. In summary:
- If the dismissal is based solely on the criminal court decision and the outcome is HAGB: such dismissal should be considered unlawful. Council of State case law has emphasized that where an HAGB decision exists, dismissal from civil service based solely on the criminal judgment is contrary to law.
- However, if the dismissal is based on Article 125/E-g of Law No. 657: that is, where the administration concludes that the person committed conduct of a disgraceful nature incompatible with the status of civil servant, the administration may impose a disciplinary sanction regardless of HAGB. In such case, HAGB does not necessarily prevent dismissal, and the civil servant may challenge in annulment proceedings whether the relevant act actually falls within the scope of Article 125/E-g.
In brief, since HAGB is not regarded as a conviction in the strict sense, it cannot directly constitute grounds for termination of civil service. However, where the administration characterizes the conduct as incompatible with public office, a dismissal sanction may still be imposed irrespective of HAGB, in which case the only effective remedy available to the civil servant is to file an annulment action.
What Is the Effect of the Deletion of a Criminal Record on Civil Service Status
The deletion of a criminal record or restoration of rights may produce consequences in criminal law, but the situation is different under the Civil Servants Law. The law prevents reinstatement to civil service in certain cases even where the sentence has been served in full and civil rights have been restored. In particular, where one of the offences listed in Article 657/48-A-5 has been committed, the disqualification remains in place even if the conviction has been pardoned or erased from the record. Therefore, deletion of the criminal record does not, by itself, permit re-entry into civil service.
As also emphasized by the Plenary Session of the Council of State Chambers, Law No. 657 contains a special regulation; therefore, the disqualifications arising from catalogue offences are not eliminated merely because the criminal record has been deleted. For example, even if the criminal record of a person dismissed from service for a dishonourable offence is erased, an application to re-enter civil service will still be rejected due to the statutory prohibition in Article 48/A-5, which applies “even if pardoned.” That said, deletion of a criminal record may be relevant for convictions outside the scope of catalogue offences; in such cases, reinstatement or reappointment may be possible if rights have been restored. In conclusion, even where a criminal record has been deleted, if the offence is one specifically prohibited under the Civil Servants Law, the obstacle to civil service remains.
What Can Be Done Against Dismissal from Civil Service
Dismissal from civil service is the most severe disciplinary sanction because it terminates a person’s status as a public servant. For this reason, a person against whom such a measure has been imposed should not passively wait for the outcome, but should immediately assess whether the act is lawful both procedurally and substantively. Under Law No. 657, judicial review before the administrative courts is available against disciplinary sanctions. Since no separate administrative objection procedure is provided for dismissal from civil service, it is crucial in practice to apply directly to the courts upon notification of the decision. Disciplinary decisions cannot be excluded from judicial review.
At this stage, the civil servant’s response should not be limited to merely “filing a lawsuit.” The investigation file on which the decision is based, the defence process, the board decision, the competence of the authority, the relevant time limits, and the legal characterization of the alleged conduct must all be examined separately. This is because dismissal decisions are often set aside not only on the basis of whether the act occurred, but also due to whether the investigation was conducted in accordance with procedure, whether the right of defence was genuinely respected, and whether the sanction imposed was proportionate. Under Law No. 657, a dismissal case must be decided within six months from the date the file is referred to the High Disciplinary Board; the civil servant must be allowed to examine the investigation documents, call witnesses, and present a written or oral defence personally or through counsel. No disciplinary sanction may be imposed without taking the defence.
The Date of Notification and the Time Limit for Filing Suit Must Be Checked Immediately
The most critical issue in challenging a dismissal decision is time. Under the Administrative Procedure Law, unless a special period is prescribed by law, the time limit for filing an action before the administrative courts is 60 days, starting from the day following written notification of the act. Accordingly, the notification date of the dismissal decision is the first and most decisive piece of information for the case. Many cases that appear well-founded are dismissed without examination on the merits simply because the filing deadline was missed.
Another important point is that, since no separate internal administrative objection mechanism exists for dismissal from civil service, a person who assumes that they should first apply to the administration and only later file suit may lose valuable time. Administrative practice and judicial assessments indicate that dismissal decisions should be challenged directly before the courts. For this reason, once notification has been received, the file should be reviewed without delay by an attorney experienced in administrative law.
An Annulment Action Must Be Filed Before the Competent Court
The principal remedy against dismissal from civil service is an annulment action before the administrative court. In disputes concerning termination of a public servant’s employment, the competent court is, as a rule, the administrative court in the place where the public servant last served. If the claim is filed before the wrong court, the case may be delayed on jurisdictional grounds; in certain circumstances, such errors may also come close to producing time-barred consequences. Therefore, it is essential that the action be brought before the correct court in terms of both subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial competence.
The purpose of an annulment action is not limited to having the dismissal decision set aside. It also opens the way for reinstatement, restoration of personal rights, and recovery of financial entitlements of which the civil servant was deprived. If the court finds the act unlawful, the administration is under an obligation to comply with the judgment. Constitutional Court decisions have likewise emphasized that the right of access to court must be effectively protected in disputes involving public officials.
Procedural Violations Must Be Specifically Emphasized in the Statement of Claim
One of the strongest grounds for annulment in dismissal cases is the failure to conduct the disciplinary investigation in accordance with procedure. In particular, it should be examined in detail whether sufficient time was given for the defence, whether the accusation was clearly communicated, whether the investigation documents were made available for review, whether the request to call witnesses was evaluated, whether the board was duly constituted and competent, and whether the statutory time limits for investigation and decision-making were observed. Law No. 657 expressly provides that no disciplinary sanction may be imposed without obtaining the defence; accordingly, a violation of defence rights constitutes a serious ground of unlawfulness.
Especially in cases involving dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to state that “the defence was requested.” The notice requesting the defence must contain a concrete allegation, enabling the civil servant to understand the charge and respond effectively. Likewise, failure to genuinely provide the right to submit an oral or written defence before the High Disciplinary Board may constitute a significant ground for annulment. The fact that an investigation appears formally complete does not necessarily mean that it is lawful.
The Legality of the Act Must Also Be Challenged in Terms of Cause and Subject Matter
In an action against dismissal from civil service, not only procedural issues but also the substantive grounds of the act must be challenged. In other words, the administration must establish in concrete terms that the alleged act actually occurred, that it has been correctly characterized, and that it truly warrants the heaviest disciplinary sanction under Law No. 657. In some cases, even where the act itself is proven, it may still be argued that the conduct warrants a lesser disciplinary sanction rather than dismissal. The issue then becomes one of proportionality rather than merely the existence of the conduct.
For example, the administration may have characterized the event directly as disgraceful or shameful conduct incompatible with the status of civil servant, whereas the evidence in the file may not support such conclusion. Although the administration enjoys a measure of discretion when imposing disciplinary penalties, that discretion is not unlimited. A reasonable balance must be struck between public interest, service requirements, the gravity of the act, and the sanction imposed. Otherwise, the act becomes unlawful in terms of both cause and subject matter and may be annulled. For this reason, the statement of claim should not remain abstract; the proof of the act, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the severity of the sanction should be addressed under separate headings.
If There Is a Criminal Case, Its Relationship with the Disciplinary File Must Be Carefully Established
Under Law No. 657, criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings may proceed independently; the commencement of criminal prosecution does not automatically suspend the disciplinary process, and a criminal conviction or acquittal does not by itself eliminate disciplinary liability. Therefore, assessments such as “my criminal case is ongoing, so the administration must wait” or “I was acquitted, so the disciplinary sanction automatically falls away” are not correct in every case.
That said, the criminal case is by no means irrelevant. Statements taken during the criminal investigation or prosecution, expert reports, CCTV footage, telephone traffic data, specialist reports, and the reasoning of an acquittal decision may all constitute strong material capable of undermining the basis of the disciplinary act. Particularly where the criminal file clearly demonstrates that the act did not occur, that the allegation was directed at the wrong person, or that the evidence is insufficient, such material should certainly be used in the administrative proceedings. In short, the criminal case does not automatically resolve the disciplinary case, but when properly used, it may become a highly effective supporting file.
A Request for Stay of Execution Should Always Be Considered
In actions against dismissal from civil service, it is often insufficient to seek only annulment of the act. This is because, until the case is concluded, the person may lose salary, social rights, status, and professional reputation. For that reason, in most cases a request for stay of execution should also be included in the statement of claim. Under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law, stay of execution may be granted only if two conditions are met together: the act must be prima facie unlawful, and its implementation must be likely to cause irreparable or difficult-to-remedy harm.
In dismissal cases, the condition of irreparable harm can often be concretely demonstrated. Loss of the person’s sole source of livelihood, impairment of social security protection, interruption of professional career, and future personal rights losses may all be advanced in this context. However, the court will not grant such request automatically; the request for stay of execution must be supported by serious and concrete reasoning. Therefore, it is not enough merely to state, “we request a stay of execution”; the statement of claim should separately explain both the manifest unlawfulness and the nature of the harm likely to occur.
The Evidence Strategy Must Be Properly Built
Success in such cases often depends not only on knowledge of the legislation, but also on the architecture of the evidence. The investigation report, defence request, defence petition, board decisions, notification documents, minutes, witness statements, CCTV footage, inspector reports, and criminal file documents should all be read together. In many cases, the administration presents the conclusions of the investigation report as though they were definitive proof, whereas the raw data in the file do not support the same conclusion. For that reason, the focus should not be solely on the conclusion reached by the report, but also on the underlying data and documents on which that conclusion is based.
Whether notification was made in accordance with procedure is also an issue that is often overlooked. The date and manner in which the decision was notified, whether the legal remedies and time limits were properly indicated, and whether the time granted for the defence was genuinely usable are all important both for the calculation of deadlines and for the right of defence. Even if a procedural defect appears minor, such deficiencies may produce serious consequences before the courts in cases involving a sanction as severe as dismissal from civil service. Official guidance on disciplinary investigation procedures has likewise emphasized the need to specify legal remedies and time limits in notifications of disciplinary decisions.
Reinstatement and Financial Rights Must Also Be Followed After an Annulment Judgment
Even when the court annuls the dismissal decision, the process does not end automatically. The administration must promptly comply with the requirements of the judgment. Constitutional Court decisions have also underlined, pursuant to Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law, that the administration is obliged to take action in accordance with court judgments, and that this must be done within no more than 30 days from notification of the judgment to the administration. Therefore, after an annulment judgment, reinstatement, correction of the personnel file, and recovery of lost financial rights must all be actively followed.
In some cases, the administration interprets the annulment judgment narrowly and reinstates the person without fully restoring past salary, additional payments, grade and step progression, social rights, and other personal entitlements. In such situations, a separate administrative application and, where necessary, a full remedy action may become relevant for the recovery of financial rights. Therefore, the purpose of the case is not merely to have the act annulled, but to ensure that the civil servant’s status and rights are fully restored with all legal consequences.
Petition for Reinstatement to Civil Service
If an unlawful dismissal is annulled, reinstatement may be sought. An action for reinstatement aims to secure the civil servant’s return to public office. The petition should include the following elements:
- Subject Matter: The relevant administrative act should be clearly identified by date and number. For example: “SUBJECT: Annulment of the decision dated 01/01/2024 and numbered … concerning dismissal from civil service…”
- Parties and Legal Basis: The identity of the claimant civil servant, the defendant administration (for example, the Ministry of Health), and the legal basis (such as Articles 657/98, 125/E-g, etc.) should be explained.
- Statement of Facts and Grounds: The reasons why the decision is unlawful should be set out. This section should address issues such as procedural irregularities in the investigation, unlawfully obtained evidence, or the argument that the act in question does not in fact constitute conduct warranting dismissal.
- Legal Relief Sought: The petition should request annulment of the act and reinstatement to duty. For example, the petition may seek “annulment of the dismissal decision issued against the claimant and restoration of the personal rights of which the claimant has been deprived.”
- Annexes: The petition should include the disciplinary board decisions, investigation minutes, and other relevant documents.
Careful preparation of the petition is of great importance in the protection of legal rights. At this stage, the assistance of an experienced attorney may be critical. Bektaş Law Office guides its clients in reinstatement cases by preparing sample petitions and developing effective legal strategies.
Evaluation and Conclusion
Dismissal from civil service is the most severe disciplinary sanction that can be imposed on an individual in public employment. Every stage of the process—investigation, decision, and judicial review—must therefore be examined with particular care. Loss of status due to a criminal conviction may produce consequences that are difficult to reverse at a later stage. For this reason, it must be carefully assessed under what conditions the dismissal decision was issued, whether it has become final, and whether there are special circumstances such as HAGB or suspended sentence. Concepts such as the scope of offences that bar civil service and the limits of criminal record deletion may lead to very different legal outcomes. On the other hand, legal remedies must always be exercised against a dismissal decision. Filing an annulment action may open the way to setting aside the act and securing reinstatement.
In such a complex process, receiving support from an experienced administrative law attorney provides a significant advantage. In order to ensure that applications against dismissal from civil service are made in a timely and complete manner, all legal steps must be managed with care. Bektaş Law Office, with its expert team, works to protect the rights of aggrieved civil servants and provides effective representation in annulment and reinstatement actions, as well as in claims for restoration of personal rights. For further information, you may contact our office.
