Disciplinary Action and Consequences Occurring When Civil Servants Commit Offenses, Even When Not on the Job

Abstract

          The issue at hand is the case of a civil servant who was charged with a crime for personal actions outside of work hours involving the hoarding and resale of masks at an inflated price. In this instance, the Court of Appeals imposed a fine of 15,000 baht and a prison term of 2 years and 9 months with 2 years of parole. The case was decided by the Court of Appeals. The issue in this case is that the Court believed parole would be more beneficial than incarceration, despite the fact that a crime had been committed. Determining how disciplinary processes and disciplinary actions against civil servants in this situation may be sanctioned is the impetus for the study of the Administrative Court's ruling guideline on such matters. In the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court NO. อ.628/2558, the ruling was that the case was final when the court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment. Thus, punishment must be inevitable regardless of whether or not the prison sentence was actually received.