<<
>>

§ 6. The basic directions of perfection administrativnopravovogo regulations of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation

During reforming of law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation there were the considerable positive changes connected, including, to an adoption of law about service in law-enforcement bodies which it is essential increased requirements to observance of office discipline, and also in more details, in difference about earlier applied concerning employees of law-enforcement bodies of Position about service in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation, questions of application of institute of office check are regulated.

The service in law-enforcement bodies has the specificity. As the Most holy Patriarch Moscow and vseja Russia Cyril in the performance on «the Round table» «has noticed Spirituality. Morals. The law», taken place

28.03.2012 at the Moscow university of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia: «the Majority

Employees of law-enforcement bodies constantly are in it is moral to the adverse environment, face «the most painful, dangerous displays of human characters», with violence, corruption »[200].

The specified circumstances testify to necessity of constant perfection of measures on strengthening of office discipline and legality among officials of law-enforcement bodies, to maintenance in collectives of a favorable is social-psychological climate, to overcoming of the negative phenomena, maintenance of psychological stability and professional reliability of employees.

As marks A.A.Grishkovets, one of the effective means providing a mode of legality in machinery of state, is the disciplinary responsibility of civil servants [201].

In this connection, actual there is a question of perfection of legal regulation of a disciplinary responsibility of employees of law-enforcement bodies.

In connection with coming into force of the Law on service the significant amount of the legal acts regulating disciplinary manufacture was accepted. At the same time, despite a sufficient legal regulation of the given legal relations, pravoprimenitelnaja practice testifies to requirement of their further updating.

The effect of realisation of disciplinary manufacture is substantially defined by quality of accepted decisions, their validity, argumentirovannostju, timeliness. Such decisions can be accepted the person possessing the disciplinary power, only at presence at it the full and all-round information on perfect offence, circumstances of its fulfilment.

The logic activity directed on an establishment of actual facts of business has received the name of legal proving [202].

Proving in disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies practically it is not mentioned. At the same time, proving is a necessary condition in business of an establishment of true. According to E.V.Dodin it is integrally connected with deep and all-round studying of a concrete situation [203 [204].

Unlike criminal or civil processes in which the norms regulating activity on gathering, to research and evaluation of evidence, are allocated in separate sections and chapters, in disciplinary manufacture of law-enforcement bodies such systematised norms are absent. The separate norms establishing sources from which the information can be received, and also ways of its reception are fixed in the departmental legal act - the order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia from 26.03.2013 № 161, approved the Order of carrying out of office check in bodies, the organisations and divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the given norms are only indirect as logically follow from powers of the officials spending office check which analysis allows to allocate as proofs: an explanation of the employee in which relation office check is spent; explanations of other employees, the state civil

Employees and workers of system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for whom can be known

Any data on the circumstances which are coming under to an establishment during office check; material evidences; results

Psychophysiological researches (inspections); explanatories of experts in the questions demanding scientific, technical and other special knowledge.

During carrying out of office check it is necessary to carry to ways of reception of proofs: interrogation of the employee in which relation office check is spent; interrogation of other employees, the state civil employees and workers of system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia; the discovery of documents, concerning a check subject, from bodies, the organisations or divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia; a direction of inquiries in other bodies, establishments and the organisations; reception of the information from operative accounts and information systems of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, educational institutions and nauchnoissledovatelskih the organisations of system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia; use with the consent of the employee of psychophysiological researches (inspections).

In connection with stated, with a view of elimination of a blank of legal regulation, regarding absence of direct fastening of a circle of proofs to which help there is a proving in disciplinary manufacture, it is represented expedient to add ch. 3. Item 52 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies norm of the following maintenance: «As proofs are supposed: explanations of the employee in which relation office check is spent; explanations of other employees,

The state civil employees and workers of system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for whom any data on circumstances can be known, minor offence fulfilment; material evidences; results of psychophysiological researches (inspections); explanatories of experts in the questions demanding scientific, technical and other special knowledge; the information arrived from bodies, the organisations or divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, other bodies, establishments and the organisations; other subjects and documents which can serve as means for detection of a minor offence and an establishment of circumstances of its fulfilment.

The notorious matters and the facts established by judicial decisions which have entered validity, do not come under to proving ».

Finding-out of the separate facts and circumstances of fulfilment

Minor offence in some cases represents sufficient complexities as can be connected with intrusion into sphere of personal interests of the employee, into sphere of medical secret protected by the law, personal data, both the employee, and other citizens. We will result the following example.

A has addressed in court with the claim to the Department of Internal Affairs on Zelenograd administrative district of Central administrative board

The Ministries of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation on the city of Moscow about a recognition illegal the conclusions of office check, the order by results of office check, the order for dismissal, restoration on service, collecting of wages during enforced idleness, compensation of court costs in which substantiation has specified, that on Zelenograd joint-stock company GU of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on the city of Moscow have been dismissed by the order of the chief of the Department of Internal Affairs from service in law-enforcement bodies on the basis of item 6 ch. 2 items 82 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies in connection with gross violation of office discipline. According to the conclusion of office check from November, 9th, 2012 gross violation of office discipline was the absenteeism of the claimant on watch on October, 21st, 2012 which is recognised by a prorumble. In a claim substantiation has specified, that absence on service was forced as on October, 21st, 2012 it accompanied the ill grandmother in a medical institution. Besides, in the evening it has called colleague H who has agreed to change it on watch on October, 21st, 2012.

By the decision of Zelenograd regional court of of Moscow in satisfaction of claims it is given up. On civil cases of the Moscow city court the first instance decree is left by appeal definition of the full court without change. A, having disagreed with

The judicial decisions taken out on its business, has submitted the appeal for review about cancellation of the decree of the first instance and satisfaction of its claims to the Full court on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation which has found the complaint coming under

To satisfaction, having specified in the definition the following.

According to item 2 ch. 2 items 49 of the specified Federal act gross violation of office discipline of the employee of law-enforcement bodies admit absence of the employee on the duty station without valid excuse more than four hours on end during the established working hours. Deciding difference and making of the decision on refusal in satisfaction of claims, the trial court recognised that A proofs confirming to respectfulness of the reasons of absence on service is not presented. The Full court on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has found the resulted conclusions erroneous as materials of business with reliability proved to be true, that absence A on watch has been caused on October, 21st, 2012 by reasonable excuses, namely sharp deterioration of a state of health of its grandmother at which it was on a visit on October, 20th, 2012 and which in the morning of next day has brought for medical aid rendering to medical institution of Zelenograd where it passed earlier treatment. The facts of a finding of the grandmother on October, 21st, 2012 in the medical centre in Zelenograd and rendering to it medical aid proved to be true the message signed by the director of the medical organisation, a copy of a medical card of the outpatient. Thus, in itself absence at A a temporary incapacity for work leaf in communication by care realisation by a sick member of a family cannot form the basis for a conclusion about absence at the claimant of reasonable excuses for an absenteeism on service on October, 21st, 2012, considering thus, that the exhaustive list of such reasons the current legislation is not defined [205].

The specified example shows, that the basic proofs on the disciplinary case, confirming absence of fault of the employee in infringement of office discipline, data constituting a subject of medical secret - data on the fact of the reference of the citizen behind medical aid and a condition of its health [206] which reception for lack of will of the last, at the initiative of the persons participating in disciplinary manufacture, is not obviously possible were.

One of the reasons of a similar situation, in our opinion, absence of legislative fastening of the right of officials of law-enforcement bodies on reclamation of data and documents for their use as the proof in disciplinary process is. In this case it is possible to consider as an exception only reception of the necessary information from the subordinated subordinate body. In this connection, we believe, that the right to the discovery of documents, being proofs on disciplinary case from other state bodies, the organisations and establishments which korrespondirovala the legal obligation them to give, should be fixed in the law as the legal act, having direct action in all territory of the Russian Federation.

Now with a view of objective carrying out of office check of item 52 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies establishes, that the employee of law-enforcement bodies expressly or by implication interested in its results cannot participate in carrying out of office check. In this case it is obliged to submit to the head of federal enforcement authority in sphere of internal affairs or to the authorised head, made the decision on carrying out of office check, the official report on its clearing of participation in carrying out of this check. At non-observance of the specified requirement results of office check are considered as the void.

At the same time, in practice to establish the fact of presence of direct or indirect interest in results of office check of its person spending very inconveniently. Besides, specified is aggravated also with that the employee can and not inform on presence of such interest. It is obviously necessary to detail norm ch. 2 items 52 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies, having stated it in the following edition «the Employee cannot participate in carrying out of office check, in case it:

Is the relative or the relative by law of the person in which relation it is appointed;

Is in direct subordination at the person in which relation office check is spent;

Are available other circumstances giving the basis to believe, that it expressly or by implication, it is interested in results of office check.

In the presence of the specified circumstances the employee is obliged to submit to the head of federal enforcement authority in sphere of internal affairs or to the authorised head, made the decision on carrying out of office check, the official report on its clearing of participation in its carrying out. At not performance of this duty results of office check are considered as the void.

Presence of the specified circumstances can be declared other persons for whom such data are known, or they can be considered at the initiative of the person appointing office check ».

We believe, that entering of similar changes will promote maintenance of a principle of legality and objectivity at carrying out of office check.

It is necessary to notice, that at application of the norm establishing terms of imposing of summary punishment, there are the questions connected with day of detection of a minor offence, and also with term calculation in

Case of absence of the employee on service without valid excuse. So, now according to item 51 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies summary punishment should be imposed not later than in two weeks from the date of when the direct head (chief) or the direct head (chief) knew about fulfilment by the employee of law-enforcement bodies of a minor offence, and in case of carrying out of office check or criminal case excitation - not later than in one month from the date of the statement of the conclusion by results of office check or final judgement removal on criminal case. The specified terms do not join the periods of the temporary

Invalidity of the employee, its finding in holiday or on business trip.

The analysis of the specified norm testifies, that day of detection of offence is day when the direct or direct head knew about fulfilment by the employee of law-enforcement bodies of a minor offence. At the same time, in some cases, in connection with realisation of the weak control over activity of the subordinated employees, about a perfect minor offence the head will know much later, than in case of appropriate execution of the "supervising" duties by it. Differently, when the head, having real possibility to find out a minor offence, but owing to inadequate execution of the official duties of it does not do by it, there is an unreasonable tightening of the moment of detection of a minor offence, that subsequently, as a rule, leads to increase in a limitation period of attraction to a disciplinary responsibility, than the right of the employee to timely attraction to a disciplinary responsibility is broken. In this connection, the employee should undergo adverse consequences for it as a result of inactivity of other person - the chief. Such situations often arise at default to a target date the subordinated employee assigned on it standard legal acts, official regulations of a duty when the attraction limitation period to a disciplinary responsibility starts to flow from the moment of approach of the specified term, instead of minor offence detection.

Besides, in pravoprimenitelnoj activity there are cases when the employee in which relation conclusions are drawn on summary punishment imposing, has informed on temporary incapacity for work approach, but at occurrence on service, as a rule, after the termination of terms of imposing of summary punishment, the documents confirming the fact of invalidity are not represented. Therefore, attraction term to a disciplinary responsibility expires also to the employee, thus, it is possible to avoid punishment. For attraction to a disciplinary responsibility of this employee it is necessary to initiate disciplinary manufacture again, but already on the new fact - absence on service without valid excuse.

In connection with stated we believe expedient to formulate ch. 6 items 51 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies as follows. Summary punishment should be imposed not later than in two weeks from the date of, when to the direct head (chief) or

To the direct head (chief) became or it could become known about fulfilment by the employee of law-enforcement bodies of a minor offence, and in case of carrying out of office check or criminal case excitation - not later than in one month from the date of the statement of the conclusion by results of office check or final judgement removal on criminal case. The specified terms do not join the periods of temporary incapacity for work of the employee, its finding in holiday, on business trip or its absence on service without valid excuse.

As to system of the summary punishments applied to employees of law-enforcement bodies it is believed necessary to concretise application of such kinds as the prevention of incomplete office conformity and dismissal from law-enforcement bodies.

The purpose of summary punishment in the form of the prevention of incomplete office conformity is educational and precautionary influence on guilty with a view of change of its relation to executed official duties [207 [208].

According to the Disciplinary regulation of Armed forces of the Russian Federation summary punishment - the prevention of incomplete office conformity - is applied once during stay of the military man, passing military service under the contract, in an occupied regular military post. After a year after application of this summary punishment the commander (chief) till 30 days makes the decision (petitions) for removal of the given summary punishment or if the military man has not corrected the behaviour exemplary performance of a soldier's duty and collecting has not played the educational role, - about decrease in this military man in a military post or its preschedule dismissal from military service when due hereunder (item 96).

In the legislation regulating legal relations, connected with service in law-enforcement bodies, features of application of such kind of summary punishment are absent. In this connection, the given kind of summary punishment is considered removed after one year from the date of its imposing if this employee within this year was not exposed to new summary punishment [209].

At the same time, absence of summary punishments within a year, proceeding from the established procedure of definition of conformity of the displaced

Post in the law-enforcement bodies, called certification, does not mean, that, the employee began to correspond to a displaced post. Thus, if within a year the employee did not suppose misconduct, has drawn correct conclusions on offence and has a positive estimation of the office activity during the subsequent period, removal of the such

Summary punishment in a year it is possible to recognise justified. But, if the employee, not looking at available summary punishment in the form of the prevention about incomplete office, behaviour continues to neglect interests of service, to break requirements of office discipline absence of more strict legal effects of such summary punishment is represented unreasonable.

Thus, as fairly mark M.V.Presnyakov and S.E.Chanov if to proceed even from the name of this kind of collecting, it should be applied to those, to persons which not completely correspond to a displaced post. In this connection there is a natural question: why summary punishment in the form of incomplete official conformity automatically acts in film in a year? If the civil servant at the moment of summary punishment imposing not to the full corresponds to a displaced post, anywhere, actually, does not follow, that in a year it will correspond to it. Anyway, absence of new summary punishments in itself, cannot testify to it. Thus, the question on conformity or discrepancy to employees of a displaced post with the periodicity defined by the law comes under to the obligatory decision during procedure of certification [210].

Considering stated, and also legislative fastening of the uniform approach to the public service organisation, is represented

Expedient to provide norm similar, containing in the Disciplinary regulation of the Armed forces, establishing, that the prevention of incomplete office conformity - is applied once during stay of the employee of law-enforcement bodies in a displaced post. After a year after application of this summary punishment the head (chief) till 30 days makes the decision (petitions) for removal of the given summary punishment or if the employee has not corrected the behaviour exemplary performance of official duties and collecting has not played the educational role, - about carrying out of extraordinary certification for the decision of a question on transfer of the employee on a subordinate post in law-enforcement bodies or about the termination by the employee of service in law-enforcement bodies in connection with discrepancy of the employee of a displaced post in law-enforcement bodies - on the basis of the certifying commission recommendation.

According to item 7 ch. 2 with. 82 Laws on service in law-enforcement bodies the employee of law-enforcement bodies can be dismissed in connection with numerous infringement of office discipline at presence at the employee

The summary punishment imposed in writing by the order of the head of federal enforcement authority in sphere of internal affairs or the authorised head. Thus, numerous

Infringement of office discipline the Disciplinary regulation of law-enforcement bodies recognises infringement of office discipline by the employee at presence at it not removed summary punishment imposed in writing (item 47). At first sight all is clear and logical. If the employee has not removed summary punishment at repeated infringement of office discipline by it on it summary punishment in the form of dismissal can be imposed. Summary punishment in the form of dismissal in this case is applied not for last infringement of office discipline, and for set with earlier perfect infringement for which the employee has already incurred a corresponding disciplinary responsibility. Thus in both cases the admitted offences not necessarily should be rough.

In this connection there are the questions connected with a legal protection of employees of law-enforcement bodies, involved in a disciplinary responsibility.

According to ch. 3 items 50 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies for each case of infringement of office discipline on the employee of law-enforcement bodies can be imposed only one summary punishment. Hence, having applied one kind of summary punishment, the chief has not the right to impose repeatedly for the same offence repeated summary punishment, especially, in the form of dismissal.

In this connection, with a view of inadmissibility of application to the employee of a double disciplinary responsibility for the same minor offence, and also considering, that dismissal is a summary punishment extreme measure, it is obviously necessary to establish, that dismissal for numerous infringement of office discipline at presence at the employee of the summary punishment imposed in writing is applied for last minor offence, only in a case when application of other kinds of summary punishments is not enough for discipline and order restoration.

Besides, certain questions arise at application of the basis for the dismissal provided by item 9 ch. 2 items 83 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies (in connection with fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies).

So, in item 13 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies requirements to office behaviour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies according to which at realisation of office activity, and also during off-duty time the employee of law-enforcement bodies should care of preservation of the are fixed abuse also advantages, not to suppose decision-making from partiality reasons, not to make at performance of official duties the acts raising the doubts in objectivity, justice and impartiality of the employee, its aggrieving reputations, to authority of federal enforcement authority on sphere of internal affairs, and also the government.

Thus, on the one hand, in the legal act negative consequences not performance of ethical (moral) norms are fixed, that in itself it is possible to recognise proved as as it is marked in the literature, «honour of the employee» is the ethical category characterising high social prestige of members of professional community. The offences discrediting honour of employees of law-enforcement bodies even if they are made outside the limits of course of duty, generate mistrust and an uncooperative altitude to the specified bodies from the population [211].v communications with what, the immoral behaviour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies is estimated by public consciousness not from a legality position, and from a position of good, harm and justice. Accordingly, it should be provided with exclusively measures of social influence.

On the other hand, according to ch. 1 item 49 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour, is infringement of office discipline to which admits, including the actus reus (inactivity) expressed in infringement by the employee of law-enforcement bodies of requirements to office behaviour.

Thus, if to consider fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies by infringement of office discipline, and dismissal on corresponding basis attraction to a disciplinary responsibility considering, what the exhaustive list of gross violations for which unitary fulfilment dismissal is supposed, the law is established by exhaustive image there is a question - to what of gross violations the offence discrediting honour of the employee concerns? Thus, the list of gross violations of office discipline of employees of bodies internal does not contain offence of the employee discrediting honour

Law-enforcement bodies. On the basis of stated, follows, that imposing of summary punishment in the form of dismissal for the unitary infringement of office discipline which are not rough, operating

The legislation regulating legal relations, connected with service, it is not provided.

Judiciary practice also is ambiguous in the decision of the questions connected from qualifications of similar acts of employees of law-enforcement bodies.

So, G and SH have been dismissed from law-enforcement bodies in connection with fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies. As the basis for their dismissal that they during free time from performance of duty, being in a state of intoxication in uniform on the car under control of SH near the house have failed in a ditch dug for a lining of pipes has served. The given incident was removed on the chamber arrived on the telephone message of the citizen by the correspondent of a broadcasting company. Thus G behaved aggressively - closed hands a chamber objective, shouted «give a battery», broke hands to the correspondent. After that G has tried to disappear from shooting behind a corner, but on road has fallen. Then G and SH have pulled out the car and loudly discussed, using obscene abuse who from them will go at the wheel. The given plot has been shown on TV in the "News" program, than has caused a public resonance.

Having disagreed with the order for dismissal, G and SH have addressed in court with claims about restoration on service in which the fact of fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour, did not deny. In a substantiation of arguments they have specified, that the imposed summary punishment in the form of dismissal mismatches weight of offence.

By the decision of Federal court of the Central area of of Krasnoyarsk in satisfaction of claims it is given up. In the decision the court has specified, that dismissal for fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies, is not summary punishment, and is one of the bases of dismissal from service. Claimants have made not a minor offence, and an act discrediting honour of the employee of militia, for as have been dismissed. In this connection, about disproportion of consequences of their offence the court has counted arguments of claimants not based on the law, having specified, that the fact of fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee, attracts a unique consequence - dismissal from law-enforcement bodies on corresponding basis. On civil cases of Krasnoyarsk regional court the first instance decree is left by cassation definition of the full court without change [212].

Simultaneously there is absolutely opposite judiciary practice.

So, K has been dismissed from law-enforcement bodies for fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies, expressed in rough obscene statements to citizens B and with order for dismissal K has addressed in court with the claim in which has specified, that the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies, did not make, asked to recognise the order for dismissal illegal. Having listened to opinions of the parties, the conclusion of the public prosecutor, having investigated business materials, has been passed by court the decision on satisfaction of claims regarding cancellation of the order for dismissal and restoration on service as in session of the court it has been established and confirmed by the videorecording containing in materials of office check upon the reference of citizens B and B, that statements are used by the claimant in conversation as a result of provocation. Thus, any of the dialogue parties the specified statements were not perceived by the rough. Besides, from videorecording not probably unequivocally to draw a conclusion on time, a place of the record, surrounding conditions, persons in it participating. Also the court has considered, that statements which are regarded by the respondent as rough and obscene, to that to carry it is impossible. Besides, the court has specified, that the respondent breaks attraction term to a disciplinary responsibility. Thus an argument of the respondent that the dismissal order is not broken as offence is made in a life, not on duty and dismissal in this case was not summary punishment, by court has not been accepted as based on incorrect interpretation of the current legislation. On civil cases of the Orenburg provincial court the first instance decree is left by the full court without change [213].

As the question on validity of dismissal follows from the resulted example dared, including, depending on concrete circumstances (the expiry of the term for attraction to a disciplinary responsibility, conformity of disciplinary measures of severity level of offence). In our opinion, dependence of possibility of dismissal of the employees who have made offence, discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies from the expiration of terms and other circumstances, is not absolutely proved as infringement is moral-ethical standards any other minor offence as it puts the irreparable damage of reputation and to authority of law-enforcement bodies in the conditions of constant public control over moral shape and professional behaviour of employees is represented more socially dangerous, than.

Moreover, the establishment to a disciplinary responsibility, first of all, is directed by the legislation of an order of attraction on a legal protection of the rights of the employee. Infringement of this order from law-enforcement bodies is the basis for clearing of the person who have made offence, discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies from responsibility, that concerning protection of public interests it is represented not quite fair.

In this connection, it would be more expedient to fix in item 82 of the Law on service in the law-enforcement bodies, regulating the bases of the termination and cancellation of the contract the following: «contract Cancellation under item 9 ch. 3 items 82 (in connection with fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies) it is carried out, as a rule, as articles 51, 52 present Federal acts». The specified changes would establish, that dismissal on this basis is not a summary punishment measure for fulfilment of immoral offence, and the special basis for non-observance of requirements to office behaviour, and would allow to dismiss the employees who have made offences, discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies during longer term, than in time attraction to a disciplinary responsibility that would promote maintenance of balance of security public and private interests.

The carried out sociological research testifies to presence of not settled questions at realisation of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies among employees of territorial bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia at regional and regional levels in territory of the Orenburg area also. As a research method the questioning spent by dispatch and gathering of questionnaires during the period from June, 19 till June, 28th, 2014 in which (Appendix A) has taken part 481 employee of law-enforcement bodies was used.

Results of questioning have shown, that more than half of interrogated employees (53 %) was exposed to a disciplinary responsibility, in

The relation of employees of 8 % for infringement of office discipline

Summary punishments, and other measures of influence were applied not (for example, abstract preparation, award deprivation, the prevention of bar of claim by lapse of time of fulfilment similar henceforth), concerning 52 % was spent office check. From among the interrogated employees who had to appeal against the imposed summary punishment of 28 % completely

Are satisfied by results, 25 % - are satisfied partially, 16 % - are not satisfied. The majority of officials participating in questioning has supported that attraction to a disciplinary responsibility promotes strengthening of office discipline - 78 %. Along with

As attraction to a disciplinary responsibility of 55 % interrogated considers, that important value in strengthening of office discipline is occupied also with precautionary-preventive work. On requirement

The further perfection of the legislation in sphere of disciplinary manufacture have specified 25,5 % of respondents. The most part of the employees which have specified that knows the standard legal acts regulating an order of attraction to a disciplinary responsibility, has supported necessity of the edition of the uniform standard legal act, called to regulate disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies, that, in our opinion, quite obosnovanno in the conditions of plurality of standard legal acts, anyhow, its regulating. It is represented, that acceptance of such certificate will order and details legal acts and the administrative procedures made at realisation of disciplinary manufacture, minimises the errors reducing its efficiency, will simplify pravoprimenitelnuju practice, having excluded necessity of a parity of the rules of law containing in different legal sources.

The edition, the independent legal act regulating realisation of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies, instead of modification by means of inclusion of all distsiplinarno-rules of procedure in the Law on service in bodies internal or the Disciplinary regulation of law-enforcement bodies sees expedient. As in the latter case legal instructions with which it is necessary to add the Law or charter text, on the volume can suppress other norms containing in them which regulate other legal relations connected with service in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation.

Detail a procedure of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies the departmental standard legal act in the form of administrative regulations on realisation of disciplinary manufacture [214 [215] in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation, the defining basis, a stage, the form, terms and sequence of fulfilment of corresponding administrative actions, responsibility for the officials, approved by the order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia can. A subject of legal regulation specified administrative regulations will be intraorganizational administrative relations, and the maintenance administrative procedural norms.

At the same time, administrative regulations as new enough form of the standard legal act of management is not fixed now. By rules of preparation of standard legal acts in central office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation it is established, that in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia standard legal acts are published in the form of orders, positions, charters, instructions, rules, manuals and other standard legal acts [216]. In this connection, it is possible is quite proved to consider administrative regulations as other standard legal act published in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.

On realisation of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies (Appendix) it is obviously possible to state substantial filling of Administrative regulations as follows:

1. General provisions;

2. Requirements to a function procedure;

3. Structure, sequence and terms of performance of administrative procedures (actions);

4. Responsibility of officials of law-enforcement bodies for decisions and the actions (inactivity), accepted (carried out) by them during realisation of disciplinary manufacture.

The analysis of the standard legal acts regulating realisation of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies, pravoprimenitelnoj experts, the scientific literature, the spent questionnaire of employees of law-enforcement bodies, have allowed to formulate offers on perfection of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation in a part:

- Additions ch. 3. Item 52 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies the norm establishing the list of proofs on disciplinary case;

- Fastenings of the right to the discovery of documents, being proofs on disciplinary case from not subordinated bodies in the act as the legal act, possessing the higher validity and having direct action in all territory of the Russian Federation;

- Expansions in ch. 2 items 52 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies cases when the employee cannot participate in carrying out of office check, and also a circle of subjects with which can be declared presence of the specified circumstances;

- Norm changes ch. 6 items 51 of the Law on service in law-enforcement bodies, in

It is offered to them to establish, that summary punishment should be imposed not later than in two weeks from the date of, not only, when to the direct head (chief) or the direct head

(Chief) knew about fulfilment by the employee of law-enforcement bodies of a minor offence but also when it could become known. It is simultaneously specified in expediency to provide possibility of stay of a current of terms of attraction to the disciplinary

Responsibility for absence of the employee on service without valid excuse;

- Concrete definitions of the bases of application of such kinds of summary punishment as the prevention of incomplete office conformity, and also an order of its removal; dismissal for numerous infringement of the office

Disciplines and for fulfilment of the offence discrediting honour of the employee of law-enforcement bodies;

- Necessities of working out and acceptance of administrative regulations on realisation of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation that will allow to order legal acts and the administrative procedures made at realisation

Disciplinary manufacture to minimise errors, to exclude necessity of a parity of the rules of law containing in different legal sources.

Publishing house

<< | >>
A source: SHURUPOVA Ekaterina Aleksandrovna. MANUFACTURE In LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION: is administrative-LEGAL ASPECT. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Chelyabinsk 2014. 2014

More on topic § 6. The basic directions of perfection administrativnopravovogo regulations of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation:

  1. § 2. Basic characteristics of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation
  2. § 1. Genesis of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies The Russian Federation.
  3. § 5. Stages of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies The Russian Federation
  4. § 3. A legal basis of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation
  5. the Chapter II. SPECIFICITY of DISCIPLINARY MANUFACTURE In LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  6. THE CHAPTER II. REALIZATION OF DISCIPLINARY MANUFACTURE IN LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  7. the Chapter I. TEORETIKO-LEGAL BASES of DISCIPLINARY MANUFACTURE In LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  8. THE CHAPTER I. TEORETIKO-LEGAL BASES OF DISCIPLINARY MANUFACTURE IN LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
  9. Disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies concerning separate subjects of manufacture
  10. § 2. The legal characteristic of manufacture on disciplinary cases in Law-enforcement bodies
  11. Malyhina Tatyana Anatolevna. DISCIPLINARY MANUFACTURE In LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow - 2017, 2017
  12. CHAPTER 2 The basic directions of perfection administrativnopravovogo supply with information regulations pasportnovizovoj activity of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in migration sphere
  13. ROGOZHKINA Elena Anatolevna. MANUFACTURE ON DISCIPLINARY CASES In LAW-ENFORCEMENT BODIES of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. The dissertation On competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. St.-Petersburg - 2017, 2017
  14. Legal regulation of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies
  15. Disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies as a kind of administratively-jurisdiktsionnoj activity
  16. Stages of disciplinary manufacture in law-enforcement bodies
  17. § 3. The is administrative-remedial status of the persons leading manufacture on To disciplinary cases in law-enforcement bodies, and its participants
  18. § 4. Officials of law-enforcement bodies as subjects of disciplinary manufacture