On Declaring the Conclusion of the Internal Investigation Unlawful and Setting It Aside, Setting Aside the Orders, and Reinstatement in the Internal Affairs Bodies
On 25 June 2025, the Kostanay City Court of the Kostanay Region, in case No. 3910-25-00-2/1429, composed of Presiding Judge R. B. Bege zhanova, with B. Zh. Akzhanova acting as the court hearing secretary, considered, at an open court hearing using videoconferencing facilities, the civil case on the claim of Zh. E. Zh.
CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS:
- To declare the conclusion of the internal investigation unlawful and set it aside.
- To declare Orders No. 76 l/s, No. 77 l/s, and No. 78 l/s dated 4 March 2025 unlawful and set them aside.
- To reinstate the claimant in the internal affairs bodies.
- To reinstate the claimant in his studies.
- To admit the claimant to the internship and final assessment.
- To recover wages for the period of forced absence from work.
By Order No. 504 l/s dated 24 August 2023, Police Captain Zh. E. Zh., Head of the Administrative Police Unit of the Kostanay District Police Department, was seconded to the disposal of the Academy (the defendant) from 1 September 2023 in connection with his admission to the research and teaching master’s programme.
On 22 August 2023, a contract was concluded between the Academy, the Department, and the claimant, pursuant to which the defendant undertook to organise the claimant’s studies as a master’s student on a full-time basis and to pay him a monthly official salary amounting to 70 per cent of the official salary for the last staff position held before being sent to study.
A publication containing an audio-video recording concerning the stopping, on 4 February 2025, by patrol police inspectors of a Lexus LX600 motor vehicle, state registration plate No. 777OQO10, driven by the claimant, was disseminated on social networks through the WhatsApp messenger.
According to the materials of the internal investigation, during the monitoring of social networks for the purpose of identifying critical information posted concerning internal affairs bodies’ employees, it was established that the video recording had caused a negative public outcry.
Following the internal investigation conducted by the defendant on 4 March 2025, it was recommended that the issue of expelling the claimant from among the master’s students of the Academy and dismissing him from the internal affairs bodies be considered at a meeting of the Academy’s Disciplinary Commission.
By Order No. 76 l/s dated 4 March 2025, a disciplinary sanction was imposed on the claimant in the form of expulsion from the second year of the Academy’s research and teaching master’s programme and dismissal from the internal affairs bodies.
By Order No. 77 l/s dated 4 March 2025, the claimant was expelled from among the second-year master’s students of the Academy’s research and teaching master’s programme.
By Order No. 78 l/s dated 4 March 2025, the claimant was dismissed from the internal affairs bodies pursuant to subparagraph 13 of paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service” (hereinafter referred to as the Law) for committing misconduct that discredits a law enforcement body.
The claimant filed a claim with the court seeking to have the conclusion of the internal investigation declared unlawful and set aside, to have Orders No. 76 l/s, No. 77 l/s, and No. 78 l/s dated 4 March 2025 declared unlawful and set aside, to be reinstated in the internal affairs bodies and in his studies, to be admitted to the internship and final assessment, and to recover wages for the period of forced absence from work.
The claim was based on the fact that the claimant had complied with the police officers’ demands to stop, although they had not required him to present any documents; he had not introduced himself to the inspectors as a police officer and had not presented his official identification card; and he had left the place where he had stopped with the inspectors’ permission.
No disobedience, violation of the speed limit, or other such conduct on the part of the claimant was established. There was no recording from the patrol police crew’s dashboard camera, the police officers’ body-worn video cameras, or their official tablet.
According to Conclusion No. 2025/006 C dated 17 April 2025, issued by specialist D. O. U. following a comprehensive examination of computer technology tools and a phototechnical examination, the submitted video recording had been re-recorded from the screen of an unidentified device and contained signs of editing and alteration, with the sound track likely having been edited using third-party audio and video editing software, as reflected in the examination section of the conclusion.
Violations were committed by the defendant during the internal investigation and the issuance of orders concerning the claimant, since the claimant was on sick leave, of which Senior Inspector Sh. A. M. of the Internal Logistics Service was aware; no written explanation was obtained from the claimant; the claimant was dismissed without the consideration and recommendation of the Disciplinary Commission; and the claimant was not familiarised with the issued orders or the results of the internal investigation.
Furthermore, under the 2023 curriculum, a decision must be made to admit the claimant to the internship and final assessment.
At the court hearing, the claimant supported the claim and explained that the person depicted in the video recording was indeed him, that a verbal conflict had arisen with the police officers, and that he had used obscene language during the conversation with them. He stated that it had not been established who had disseminated the video on the Internet.
He receives a scholarship at the Academy. The defendant had not familiarised him with the results of the internal investigation or the issued orders. He requested that the claim be granted.
The claimant’s representatives supported the claim and explained that the violations committed by the defendant during the internal investigation procedure and the issuance of orders concerning the claimant were not disputed by the defendant.
The defendant had no authority to dismiss the claimant, since it was an educational institution. They requested that the claim be granted.
At the court hearing, the defendant’s representative supported the written response submitted to the court and explained that the publication of the video recording had caused a broad negative public outcry, undermining the authority of law enforcement service.
Between 3 and 4 March 2025, the Academy received requests from national and local mass media outlets seeking information about the measures taken in respect of the claimant.
When deciding the issue of the claimant’s expulsion and dismissal, the Academy was guided by paragraph 22 of the Methodological Recommendations on the Procedure for Conducting Internal Investigations and Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions in the Internal Affairs Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan, approved by Order No. 1080 of the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 December 2019.
The matter was under the supervision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan. No Disciplinary Commission meeting was held, the Academy had no authority to dismiss the claimant, no written explanation was obtained from the claimant, and the orders concerning expulsion and dismissal were not sent to the claimant or to the Department.
The representative explained that the Internal Security Directorate of the Police Department of the Kostanay Region was conducting a pre-trial investigation under Part 1 of Article 378 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in relation to the claimant’s alleged insult of a representative of authority while the latter was performing official duties.
She explained that the claimant had an individual study schedule and that, if he were reinstated in his studies, a plan would be drawn up and he would be admitted to the internship and assessment. During his studies, the claimant receives a scholarship calculated as a percentage of his official salary.
She requested that the claim be dismissed.
The representative of the Department explained that the defendant had no authority to dismiss the claimant and should have sent the order expelling the master’s student solely for information purposes.
He considered that the decision should be left to the court’s discretion.
The prosecutor participating in the case delivered an opinion that the claim should be granted.
Regarding Claim 1
Pursuant to subparagraph 6 of Article 1 of the Law, law enforcement service is a special type of public service in positions within law enforcement bodies, as well as the performance of service in the cases provided for in Article 44 of this Law.
In accordance with paragraph 15 of Article 57 of the Law, a period of temporary incapacity for work, being on leave or on a business trip, and appealing against decisions, acts, and recommendations of authorised bodies and officials, as well as acts (conclusions and results) of an internal investigation that constitute grounds for imposing a disciplinary sanction, suspend the running of the time limit for imposing a disciplinary sanction if the disciplinary offence became known during that period or before its commencement.
The period for conducting an internal investigation and imposing a disciplinary sanction may be suspended in the absence of the results of a pre-trial investigation or special examinations (expert examinations).
Based on the above provision, it follows that a conclusion of an internal investigation constituting grounds for imposing a disciplinary sanction is subject to appeal. Exercising his procedural right to appeal, the claimant applied to the court with this claim.
In accordance with Article 57 of the Law, the grounds for imposing a disciplinary sanction are the commission of a disciplinary offence by an employee.
Disciplinary sanctions in the form of a warning of incomplete official compliance, removal from the position held, dismissal, and expulsion from an educational institution of law enforcement bodies are imposed based on the results of an internal investigation and the corresponding recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission.
An order imposing a disciplinary sanction must be announced to the employee subjected to the disciplinary sanction against signature within three working days from the date of its issuance.
A refusal to familiarise oneself with an order imposing a disciplinary sanction shall be recorded in a formal report drawn up by the personnel service of the law enforcement body and registered in a special register.
If it is impossible to familiarise the employee personally with the order imposing a disciplinary sanction, the personnel service of the law enforcement body is obliged to send a copy of the order imposing the disciplinary sanction to the employee by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt.
According to Article 58 of the Law, an internal investigation must be completed no later than one month from the date on which the decision to conduct it was made, excluding the period during which the employee is on leave, on a business trip, receiving medical treatment, or absent from service for other valid reasons.
Suspension and resumption of an internal investigation shall be carried out on the basis of a report submitted by the employee to the head.
An employee in respect of whom an internal investigation is being conducted has the right to provide a written explanation on the substance of the internal investigation; submit motions; present evidence and other documents; and, upon completion of the internal investigation, familiarise himself with the conclusion and other materials, unless this conflicts with the requirements prohibiting disclosure of information constituting state secrets or other legally protected secrets.
The written evidence submitted by the claimant and the explanations provided by the defendant’s representative established that the requirements of Articles 57 and 58 of the Law had been violated. Specifically, the internal investigation was conducted and completed while the claimant was on sick leave. The claimant was not granted the right to provide a written explanation on the substance of the internal investigation, submit motions, present evidence and documents, or familiarise himself with the conclusion and other materials upon completion of the internal investigation.
The defendant’s representative’s arguments concerning the receipt of requests relating to the dissemination on social networks of the video recording featuring the claimant and the resulting negative public outcry do not simplify the procedure for investigating a disciplinary offence and cannot constitute grounds for diminishing the rights and interests of a person undergoing education.
Moreover, the internal investigation was conducted by employees of the Academy, which, pursuant to its Charter, provides educational services to employees serving in the internal affairs bodies and to persons entering service in the internal affairs bodies for the first time.
It follows that almost the entire staff of the Academy consists of teaching employees with higher legal education and knowledge in the field of jurisprudence. In view of the violations committed by the defendant during the internal investigation procedure, this claim is subject to satisfaction.
Regarding Claim 2
In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 56 of the Law, the head of an educational institution of law enforcement bodies may impose disciplinary sanctions on employees studying in master’s and doctoral programmes on a full-time basis in the form of a reprimand, a censure, a severe censure, or expulsion from the educational institution of the law enforcement body.
As stated when considering Claim 1, a disciplinary sanction in the form of expulsion from an educational institution of law enforcement bodies is imposed based on the results of an internal investigation and the corresponding recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission.
Thus, the legislature has established general requirements for compliance with the procedure both when dismissing an employee and when expelling a student. The defendant’s representative did not refute the claimant’s arguments that he had been expelled from the Academy in the absence of a decision of the Disciplinary Commission.
Pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 56 of the Law, the imposition of a disciplinary sanction in the form of expulsion from an educational institution of a law enforcement body for a gross violation of official discipline by an employee or for committing misconduct that discredits a law enforcement body constitutes grounds for dismissing the employee on negative grounds provided for in subparagraphs 12) and 13) of paragraph 1 of Article 80 of this Law.
Pursuant to paragraph 12-1 of Article 57 of the Law, where an educational institution of a law enforcement body imposes a disciplinary sanction provided for in subparagraph 3) of paragraph 3 and subparagraph 4) of paragraph 4 of Article 56 of this Law, the order imposing the sanction must be sent within three working days to the personnel service of the law enforcement body in which the employee who committed the disciplinary offence serves.
These provisions of the Law indicate that the powers of an educational institution in respect of an employee undergoing education are limited, specifically to the possibility of expulsion. The issue of dismissal may be resolved only by the claimant’s employer, namely the Department.
The representative of the Department also confirmed that the Academy had no authority to decide on the dismissal of the master’s student.
Based on the foregoing, since the contested orders imposing a disciplinary sanction, expelling the claimant from the Academy, and dismissing him from the internal affairs bodies were issued by the defendant in violation of the applicable legislation and in excess of its authority, the claim is subject to satisfaction.
Regarding Claim 3
The court established that the claimant is an employee of the Department and was seconded to the Academy to undergo training. Accordingly, no employment relationship exists between the claimant and the defendant.
Since the order dismissing the claimant from the internal affairs bodies was issued by the defendant in excess of its authority, such an act is, in essence, null and void and does not give rise to any legal consequences.
As the defendant could neither legally nor actually deprive the claimant of his position and workplace in the internal affairs bodies, the claim is subject to dismissal.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5
The court considers that the claims for reinstatement in studies and admission to the internship and final assessment are redundant, since, upon the cancellation of the order expelling the claimant, the defendant must fulfil its obligations under the contract dated 22 August 2023 to organise the master’s student’s education.
In view of these circumstances, the claim is subject to dismissal.
Regarding Claim 6
The claimant filed a claim seeking recovery of wages for the period of forced absence from work.
The court established that, under the contract concerning full-time education, the defendant undertook to pay the claimant a monthly official salary amounting to 70 per cent of the official salary for the last staff position held before he was sent to study.
The above-mentioned funds constitute a scholarship, being a monthly monetary allowance paid to a student, and are recoverable for the period during which the claimant was absent from his studies for reasons beyond his control.
The official salary in the amount of 631,417 tenge is recoverable from the defendant in favour of the claimant, calculated as follows: 353,594 tenge (April and May) + 134,702 tenge (March — 16 working days × 8,418.8 tenge) + 143,121 tenge (June — 17 working days × 8,418.8 tenge). The average monthly official salary was 176,797 tenge, and the average daily official salary was 8,418.8 tenge.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 117 of the Civil Procedure Code, the state duty from which the claimant was exempted shall be recovered from the defendant, who is not exempt from payment of court costs, in favour of the state in full or in proportion to the part of the claim granted.
Since the court has granted four non-monetary claims, each subject to a state duty of 1,966 tenge, and one monetary claim, the total state duty recoverable amounts to 14,178 tenge.
Guided by Articles 223–226 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court
HAS DECIDED:
To grant in part the claim of Zha E. Zha against the Republican State Institution “Kostanay Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan named after Shrabek Kabylbayev” seeking to declare the conclusion of the internal investigation and the orders unlawful and set them aside, to reinstate the claimant in the internal affairs bodies and in his studies, to admit the claimant to the internship and final assessment, and to recover wages for the period of forced absence from work.
To declare unlawful the conclusion of the internal investigation dated 4 March 2025 conducted by the Republican State Institution “Kostanay Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan named after Sh. K.” in respect of Zha E. Zha.
To declare unlawful and set aside Order No. 76 l/s dated 4 March 2025 imposing a disciplinary sanction on Zha E. Zha.
To declare unlawful and set aside Order No. 77 l/s dated 4 March 2025 expelling Zha E. Zha from among the second-year master’s students of the Academy’s research and teaching master’s programme.
To declare unlawful and set aside Order No. 78 l/s dated 4 March 2025 dismissing the claimant from the internal affairs bodies.
To recover from the Republican State Institution “Kostanay Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan named after Sh. K.” in favour of Zha E. Zh. an official salary in the amount of 631,417 (six hundred thirty-one thousand four hundred seventeen) tenge.
The remainder of the claims shall be dismissed.
To recover from the Republican State Institution “Kostanay Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan named after Shrabek Kabylbayev” a state duty in the amount of 14,178 (fourteen thousand one hundred seventy-eight) tenge in favour of the state.
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
