The Supreme Administrative Court in Iraq: the challenge and the time limit
The Supreme Administrative Court hears cassation within 30 days of notification or deemed notification, under the amended Article 7.
Read →State employees and official discipline
Erasure and cancellation of a disciplinary penalty
In briefArticle 13 of Law No. 14 of 1991 allows the minister to cancel four lighter penalties after one year, if stated conditions are met. Delay in promotion under Article 8 expires with time, which is a different path from cancellation.
The operative text of Article 13 uses “cancellation” (ilgha’) for a minister’s decision issued under written conditions. The delay in promotion or increment that follows a penalty expires when the period set in Article 8 has run; that expiry is not, by itself, a cancellation decision. The two paths are distinct. The full table of penalties is on disciplinary penalties.
The wider framework is on State employee discipline in Iraq.
Cancellation by the minister under Article 13
Article 13, First, allows the minister to cancel any of the penalties in paragraphs First to Fourth of Article 8: drawing attention (laft al-nazar), the warning, deduction from pay, and the reprimand. In its present wording, that power does not extend to reduction of pay, demotion in grade, dismissal (fasl), or removal (azl).
Three conditions must be met together: one year has passed since the penalty was imposed; the employee has performed in a manner distinguished from his or her peers; and no other penalty has been imposed during that year. A missing condition bars cancellation.
If a cancellation decision is issued, it removes the penalty’s effects to the extent they have not already been exhausted. Remaining delay in promotion or increment falls away. What was already exhausted before the decision is not rolled back; that turns on the facts and on the date of entitlement under Article 9.
The authority named in Article 13 is the minister. The request is submitted to the minister, or according to the department’s structure to the authority that imposed the penalty, with what proves the statutory conditions.
Expiry of the penalty’s effect, as distinct from cancellation
Article 8 ties each lighter penalty to a period of delay in promotion or increment: three months for drawing attention, six months for a warning, a period calculated from the days of deduction from pay, one year for a reprimand, and two years for reduction of pay. Under Article 9, First, those periods run from the date on which the employee becomes entitled to promotion or increment, which may differ from the date of imposition.
When those periods end, the delay is exhausted. That is not the same act as a cancellation decision. A record of the penalty may remain in the service file until it is cancelled or until its effects are spent, according to the order and the department’s records. Confusing the two leads some readers to treat the one-year condition in Article 13 as identical to the promotion-delay period; they are different calculations.
Official thanks and their effect on a light penalty
Article 21 sets a separate mechanism. If thanks are addressed to the employee by the Presidency, the Council of Ministers, the minister, or a person delegated by the minister, and a penalty is still in force, one such commendation cancels drawing attention; two cancel a warning; three or more shorten the promotion delay by one month for each commendation where the penalty is heavier than a warning, up to three months in a year. This path does not replace the conditions of Article 13, and it does not reverse dismissal or removal.
How a request is usually followed
The file is read from the penalty order, the date of notification, whether a grievance or a claim before the Court of Employees’ Judiciary was filed, performance records or letters of thanks, and whether a later penalty was imposed during the year. A request is then submitted to the minister’s office or, according to the department’s structure, to the authority that imposed the penalty, with what proves the three conditions. The text does not set a special filing deadline other than the one-year condition. If the request is refused, the effect of that refusal on the employee’s status is examined in light of the decision’s nature; it may fall to be treated as a civil-service dispute or as an internal administrative step, according to the nature of the decision.
| Item | Why it is reviewed | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Penalty order and date of notification | To start the one-year period | Without proof of notification the condition is hard to calculate |
| Absence of a later penalty during the year | Article 13, First (c) | Any later penalty breaks the condition |
| Evidence of distinguished work relative to peers | Article 13, First (b) | Drawn from the service file, not from a bare assertion |
| Letters of thanks, if any | May operate under Article 21 | A path separate from Article 13 |
The office reviews whether the statutory conditions appear from the papers.
Legal basis and sources
- Law on the Discipline of State and Public Sector Employees No. 14 of 1991
- First Amendment Law No. 5 of 2008
- State Shura Council Law No. 65 of 1979 as amended by Law No. 17 of 2013
- State Council Law No. 71 of 2017
Frequently asked questions
Are “erasure” and “cancellation” the same in the statute?
Article 13 uses “cancellation”. “Erasure” is a popular wording, and it is sometimes also used for the expiry of a promotion delay. The request and the written decision show which meaning is intended.
Can dismissal or removal be cancelled after one year?
Article 13, First, confines cancellation to the four lighter penalties at the start of Article 8. Dismissal and removal fall outside that scope in the present text.
If the promotion delay has already expired, is a cancellation decision still required?
Expiry is a time effect under Articles 8 and 9. Cancellation is a ministerial decision under Article 13. An employee may still seek a decision to clear a remaining record, but one path does not replace a reading of the other.
Related topics and articles
- 01Disciplinary penalties under the State employee discipline lawDisciplinary penalties in Law No. 14 of 1991, from a written reminder to removal (azl), and how each penalty affects promotion.
- 02Grievance against a disciplinary penalty and appeal to the Court of Employees’ JudiciaryA disciplinary penalty is first challenged by grievance, then appealed to the Court of Employees’ Judiciary under Article 15 of Law No. 14 of 1991.
- 03Step-by-step procedure for imposing a disciplinary penaltyThe path for imposing a disciplinary penalty on a State employee: from referral and investigation to the written order and notification
- 04The investigative committee and the employee’s rights during the investigationHow an investigative committee is formed under Article 10 of Law No. 14 of 1991, the employee’s rights, and when referral to the courts is recommended.
- 05Suspension from duty (sahb al-yad): when it is ordered and how it affects paySuspension from duty (sahb al-yad) under Articles 16 to 19 of Law No. 14 of 1991: when it is ordered, how long it lasts, and half pay.
Grievance against an administrative decision in Iraq
A grievance is required before filing in the Administrative Judiciary Court: 30 days from notification, 30 days to decide, then 60 days to claim.
Read →When is a State employee referred to the courts under the discipline law?
Under the State employee discipline law, an investigation may stay in the department, or lead to referral if the act appears to be a job-related crime.
Read →