Page 52 - On-merged

THE OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE

warning punishment. As per Article 21/1 of the Regulation on Disciplinary Boards
and Disciplinary Supervisors, the disciplinary supervisors are capable of conducting
disciplinary investigations. Nevertheless, it was found out that allowing the investigator,
who was already assigned to carrying out a disciplinary investigation concerning the
alleged offence of the public official, to give punishment in the capacity of disciplinary
supervisor contradicted with the principles of objectivity and impartiality. It was
concluded that the punishment given through the breach of the principles of objectivity
and impartiality was unlawful considering the fact that the plaintiff’s manager – also
the disciplinary supervisor– had personally conducted the disciplinary investigation,
prepared the official report by taking the testimony of the witnesses, took the plaintiff’s
statement and gave the disciplinary punishment after making the legal assessment on
the alleged offence.
HONESTY

Honesty is a principle providing that all public servants should be correct and reliable
in all their acts and actions and avoid behaviours that will mislead or do harm to those
benefitting from public services.

The requirements of this principle are as follows:
• Public servants should tell their interlocutors the truth and guide them correctly;

• Public officials should avoid behaviours that may obscure the trust of the
individuals in the state;

• The administration should not act in a manner that may harm the notion that
it is honest with the public.

Case Study

In the Decision dated 04/03/2019 of the Ombudsman Institution on the application no.
2018/11319, the applicant claimed that the death of the applicant’s mother was caused
by an erroneous intervention of the doctor and requested necessary administrative and
criminal actions against the doctor.
As a result of the examination carried out by the Ombudsman Institution, it was
identified that it would be perceived that no investigation was made on the case as the
one who was assigned to the role of investigator for the complaints was a colleague
of the subject doctor in the same hospital; the investigator who worked in the same
hospital would not reveal the faults of the hospital he worked in and his colleague and
it would cause the concerned persons to think that the relevant investigation was not
objective; and it would undermine the credibility of the establishment of the Law and
justice; as a result, it was evaluated that investigation on the doctor complained against
was contrary to the principle of honesty.

2019 ANNUAL REPORT 51