A disciplinary penalty is imposed on an employee immediately after the discovery of a disciplinary offense, but no later than one month from the date of its discovery.

D. filed a lawsuit with the GKP "A" to declare unjustified and cancel the orders to impose disciplinary penalties and the decisions of the working group, compensation for moral damage, pointing out that in early 2011, groundless harassment and harassment at work began against her, as a result, the disputed orders were unjustifiably issued. By the decision of the Almaly district Court of Almaty dated August 31, 2011, upheld by the decision of the Appellate judicial Board of the Almaty City Court dated October 11, 2011, D.'s claim was denied. The protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan states that during the consideration of the case by the courts, the circumstances of the case were unilaterally investigated, the applicable norms of the law were misinterpreted and applied. According to Part 3 of Article 388 of the CPC, the time limit for bringing a protest is extended by the court if a request for a supervisory protest is submitted to the prosecutor in compliance with the established deadline, but no decision has been taken on it. D.'s petition for a supervisory protest was submitted to the Prosecutor General's Office on October 10, 2012, i.e. within the time limit prescribed by law, but no decision has been taken on it, as indicated in the protest, and therefore the board found the deadline to be extended.

The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan has extended the deadline for filing a protest. In accordance with Article 387 of the CPC, the basis for a supervisory review of judicial acts that have entered into force is a significant violation of the norms of substantive or procedural law. The decision of the Almaly district court No. 2 in Almaty was upheld by the court of appeal. Articles 72 and 74 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provide that for the commission of a disciplinary offense by an employee, the employer has the right to apply disciplinary penalties provided for by law no later than one month after the discovery of the offense. It has been established that by the order of the State State Security Committee "A" dated February 09, 2011, D. was disciplined in the form of a reprimand.  The reason for the announcement of the reprimand was "failure to comply with the orders of the immediate management and the order of the enterprise." It follows from the memo of the head of the department of the State Enterprise "A" that the plaintiff, in violation of the internal order dated January 10, 2011 "On approval of the procedure for accepting documents," accepted and registered a package of documents from T LLP without a visa for responsible persons. They were not subject to prolongation, since the advertising facilities were installed on public lands. According to the order dated January 10, 2011, the documents for the prolongation and initial registration of outdoor (visual) advertising objects were to be accepted after the visa of the heads of the registration and approval department, the monitoring and accounting department, the plaintiff is familiar with this order. Under the circumstances described, the protest arguments that the court did not take into account that on January 10, 2011, the plaintiff, accepting the documents of "T" LLP, fulfilled her labor duties set out in paragraph 2 of the job description dated January 05, 2010. It is not taken into account that according to Article 7 of the Law "On the Procedure for Considering Appeals from Individuals and Legal Entities", appeals submitted in accordance with the procedure established by Law are subject to mandatory admission, registration, accounting and consideration, and refusal to accept appeals is prohibited.

A disciplinary penalty is imposed on an employee immediately after the discovery of a disciplinary offense, but no later than one month from the date of its discovery.

Subsequently, on February 28, 2011, announcing a strict reprimand, the employer justified that D., not being an employee of the accounting and monitoring department of the State Enterprise "A", unreasonably issued the registration agreement of LLP "B" for prolongation. According to the company's order dated February 18, 2011, a working group was established to conduct an internal audit. It follows from the minutes of the meeting of the working group that the plaintiff, when processing the document, exceeded her official authority, went beyond her functional duties, acted contrary to the economic interests of GKP "A", since LLP "B" has debts to the commercial department for the rental of advertising space.

At the same time, it is indicated that D. voluntarily, without gaining access, logged into the computer database for advertising objects and issued a registration agreement. Regarding this disciplinary action, the protest stated that the court had failed to give a legal assessment to D.'s arguments about her repeated involvement in the duties of monitoring department staff without issuing written orders. These arguments of D. have been investigated by the court and given a proper legal assessment. Thus, the board considered that the court had not committed significant violations of the norms of substantive or procedural law, entailing a review of judicial acts by way of supervision, the norms of substantive law were applied to these legal relations correctly. The courts of the first and appellate instances made the correct conclusions that disciplinary penalties against the plaintiff were applied reasonably, lawfully and in accordance with the requirements of the Labor Code, while taking into account the nature and severity of the offenses committed, the circumstances of its commission and the previous behavior of the employee. On these grounds, the protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan was left without satisfaction. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases