An Analytical Study of the Interpretation of Conduct Deemed as Serious Misconduct by Civil Servants

Abstract

This article aims to examine the interpretation of conduct constituting “serious misconduct” under Section 85(4) of the Civil Service Act B.E. 2551 (2008), which provides for a disciplinary offense without a clear definition or established legal elements. Despite the absence of specificity, the provision imposes the most severe penalties—dismissal or discharge from government service—which directly affect the status and rights of the civil servant concerned. This article thus analyzes the interpretative framework of this provision based on dictionary definitions, the guidelines of the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC), judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, and principles of modern administrative law.

The content includes a comparative analysis between “ordinary misconduct” and “serious misconduct,” based on three interpretive criteria: the dignity of the civil service, societal perception, and the intent of the actor. Empirical case studies are presented to illustrate enforcement practices, including instances of adultery, corruption, and conduct in grave violation of moral standards. Both the Administrative Court and the OCSC have consistently recognized such actions as constituting serious disciplinary offenses. The article stresses that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the rule of law, proportionality, and impartiality.

Policy recommendations are proposed to enhance legal clarity and consistency in enforcement, including: (1) incorporating explicit terminology and definitional elements into Section 85(4); (2) developing standardized interpretive guidelines for supervisors; and (3) reviewing appeal and complaint mechanisms to better align with human rights and genuine principles of good governance.