The difference between dismissal and removal under the State employee discipline law

In the Law on the Discipline of State and Public Sector Employees No. 14 of 1991, dismissal and removal are the last two penalties in Article 8, and they differ in effect and in the conditions for imposing them.The table of penalties from drawing attention to demotion in grade is on disciplinary penalties.

The wider framework is on State employee discipline in Iraq. Re-employment after either penalty is discussed on whether a dismissed or removed employee may be reinstated.

Dismissal: removal for a fixed period

Article 8, Seventh, defines dismissal as removing the employee from the post for a period specified in the dismissal decision, which must state the reasons that required the penalty, in two forms.

The first is a period of not less than one year and not more than three years, if the employee has been punished with two of the penalties of reprimand, reduction of pay or demotion in grade, or with one of them twice, and then, for a third time within five years of the first penalty, commits an act that warrants one of those penalties. This form is cumulative: it is read from the record of earlier penalties and from the date of the first, not from the gravity of the last act alone.

The second is the period of imprisonment, if the employee is sentenced to imprisonment for a crime that does not involve moral turpitude, running from the date of the judgment. Time spent in detention counts towards the dismissal period, and the half-salaries paid during suspension from duty are not recovered. If the crime does involve moral turpitude, this form is not simply extended to it; the description may overlap with grounds for removal or with the effect of the criminal judgment, and is read from the operative part of the judgment and from the applicable text.

Dismissal, in this sense, is temporary in its duration. Expiry of the period does not, by itself, mean an automatic return to the post without a further step, but it differs from removal, which closes the door to re-employment in State departments.

Removal: permanent exclusion, with a ban on re-employment

Article 8, Eighth, defines removal as removing the employee from the post permanently. The person may not be re-employed in State or public-sector departments — the original text refers to the “socialist sector”, and the name in force after Law No. 5 of 2008 is the public sector. Removal is issued by a reasoned decision of the minister, in one of three cases: if the employee is shown to have committed a serious act making it harmful to the public interest that he or she remain in State service; if the employee is convicted of a felony arising from the post or committed in an official capacity; or if the employee was punished with dismissal, was later re-employed, and then committed an act again warranting dismissal.

The power here is the minister’s. Under Article 14, the Prime Minister or the head of an entity not linked to a ministry may also impose dismissal or removal on an employee of that ministry or entity. In all cases, a grievance and a claim before the Court of Employees’ Judiciary remain available under Article 15.

Neither removal nor dismissal falls within the ministerial cancellation that Article 13 provides for the four lighter penalties after one year. Article 13 does not provide a basis for cancelling a removal penalty on those same conditions.

How the two are distinguished in the file

The penalty order is read: did it name dismissal or removal? Did a dismissal state its period and reasons, as the text requires? Did a removal rest on one of the three cases, and on a criminal judgment if one was alleged? If the employee was suspended from duty, Article 19, First, provides that if the employee is dismissed or removed, nothing of the withheld pay is paid, whether the dismissal or removal rests on this law or on any other law.

Dismissal and removal are not to be confused with discharge of an employee during probation, which is a path under Civil Service Law No. 24 of 1960, not a penalty in the Article 8 table. Nor are they to be confused with termination of service for absence under Article 37 of that law. Each path is read from its own source.

The office classifies the penalty from the order and from the conditions in Article 8.

Legal basis and sources

1. Law on the Discipline of State and Public Sector Employees No. 14 of 1991
2. First Amendment Law No. 5 of 2008

Frequently asked questions

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.
• 02May a dismissed or removed State employee be reinstated?When a person punished with dismissal may later be re-employed, and why the law forbids re-employing a person punished with removal.
• 03Grievance 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.
• 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.

Always check the text in force and its amendments in the official source.

To ask about your matter