Proof of Disciplinary Violations during Administrative Investigation per Jordanian civil service Bylaw No. 9 of 2020: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Objectives: this study sheds light on disciplinary evidence and defines its features to ascertain if an employee has committed a disciplinary violation while carrying out his job duties. It demonstrates how the Administrative Investigation Committee can establish the burden of proof. Further, the study offers crucial recommendations for the Jordanian legislator to perform its duties effectively. Research Problem: the adequacy of organising special rules of evidence before the Administrative Investigation Committee to detect behavioural violations. The Jordanian legislator addressed these rules in Article 146/b/2 of the Jordanian civil service Bylaw No. 9 of 2020. However, these rules are not integrated, as it is assumed that the administration has complete evidence of claims of behavioural violations. It does not have the right to accuse the employee of deviating from his job mandate without evidence. The employee is also entitled to present evidence refuting such claims. Thus, it falls to investigation committees to search for the necessary evidence to clarify the truth. The study demonstrates the legislator’s lack of interest in the rules that deal with evidentiary evidence in disciplinary violations and the failure of the Jordanian legislation to organise evidence to detect violations committed by public servants. Methods: this study adopts a descriptive and analytical approach that compares the Jordanian, Egyptian and Emirati legislation concerning the rules of evidence. Results and Conclusions: the paper concludes by with the following results such as: Jordanian civil service Bylaw fails to organise the means of evidence and administrative papers, as the legislator did not explicitly grant the Administrative Investigation Committee the authority to review documents related to the violation. In contrast, they were expressly formulated in the Egyptian and Emirati legislations. As well as, the Jordanian legislator did not deal with the method of inspection before the administrative investigation committee in the Civil Service Bylaw, unlike the Egyptian legislator who regulated that method in the law and provided instructions to the Administrative Prosecution. Such was also the case for the UAE federal legislator within the framework of the executive regulations of the human resources law in the federal government. -