The mutual impact between administrative investigation and criminal investigation

Abstract

This study dealt with the mutual effect between the administrative and criminal investigations, and pointed out that the conviction of the employee does not mean that he is administratively convicted. In addition, the employee's acquittal does not prevent the administration from imposing disciplinary punishment against him. And the Iraqi legislator has made the administrative investigation evidence of the employee's conviction and did not make them irrefutable evidence of his conviction and this legislative defect must be corrected, and that the administrative investigation is completely independent of the investigation loyalty.

     It became clear through the research that the relationship between the administrative investigation and the criminal investigation is independent of each other, but that does not mean separation between them. If the criminal ruling restricts the judge in relation to the occurrence of the crime and attributes it to the accused, the criminal court’s ruling of acquittal is doubtful evidence of proof or accusation. This does not prevent the employee from being held accountable administratively if the act that occurred constitutes an administrative sin that requires disciplinary punishment. This is confirmed by Article 23 of the State Employees Discipline Law No. 14 of 1991 (amended), and if the employee commits a disciplinary violation that requires referral to the criminal courts. The issuance of a criminal acquittal ruling on the employee does not prevent the administration from imposing a disciplinary penalty against him due to the different perspective of the crime in the criminal case than in the administrative law. In addition, the inclusion of the employee in the general amnesty law does not remove the disciplinary or disciplinary effects of the penalty, and the investigation is authoritative. Administrative before the criminal courts, this argument is based on the data that results from the administrative investigation that helps the court to form its conviction from the evidence it finds during the investigation, and there is nothing legally preventing it from taking the administrative investigation and considering it as presumption or evidence that helps it build a sound legal ruling, and it is wrong. To say that the administrative investigation is not among the evidence stipulated in Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 23 of 1971 (amended), because the evidence stated in the aforementioned article that could be the conviction or belief of the court in the ruling was not mentioned exclusively, as the legislator This evidence was not limited, as is the case in civil evidence.