Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
19 February 2008
Facts
The applicant seeks the annulment of the order of the Director of the Department of Prisons of the defendant 'Dismissal from the service' and his reinstatement in the service, as well as an order for the payment of an average salary and the costs of proceedings.
Complaint
According to the applicant, his dismissal from the service was unjustified and unlawful, since he had not committed any act, which had brought the officer into disrepute. According to the applicant, he is unable to give detailed reasons for his opposition to his dismissal, since the contested order does not specify the specific acts for which he was dismissed, and he has not been informed of the conclusion of the staff investigation and has not received it.
Court’s ruling
It is apparent from the casefile that the staff investigation, which resulted in the staff report, was initiated following the receipt by the defendant of a decision from the General Prosecutor's Office to discontinue the pre-trial investigation in a criminal case and the explanatory note accompanying it. Those documents constitute official information on the disciplinary offence allegedly committed by the applicant and, therefore, the receipt of that information constitutes a reliable and sufficient basis for the opening of the staff investigation.
It is apparent from the staff report that it referred to (and used as relevant evidence) the data contained in the criminal case and the additional operational information obtained by the defendant during the investigation. According to the Law on Operational Activities, classified operational information may be declassified and used in criminal proceedings, as well as used for other purposes in cases provided for by law. Operational information as evidence is inadmissible in administrative proceedings, has no procedural value and is not evaluated by the court.
Having examined the case from the point of view of the assessment of the other evidence in the case, the evidential value in the present administrative case is to be attributed to the information officially submitted to the defendant, to the applicant's explanations contained in the staff report, which show that the factual circumstances set out in the information are not in fact disputed. The facts referred to in the criminal proceedings were also recorded in the testimonies of witnesses, which were verified by the court of first instance following the examination of those witnesses in court. There is no evidence in the case to contradict or cast doubt on the above. The Court therefore agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that the applicant carried out the acts in question. The Court agreed with the Court of first instance's conclusion and the reasoning that the acts in question are derogatory to the official's title.