On Declaring the Dismissal Order Illegal and Reinstatement in the Former Position, and Restoration of the Special Rank with the Existing Class Qualification
On 10 February 2026, in case No. 5510-25-00-2/8365, the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of the City of Pavlodar, Pavlodar Region, composed of presiding judge K B.S., with D.Е. Tanzharikova acting as the court hearing secretary, having considered the civil case in an open court hearing, upon the claim of:
PLAINTIFF: M K.Kh.
DEFENDANT: State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan”
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS:
- To declare the dismissal order illegal.
- To reinstate the plaintiff in the former position.
- To amend the personal file and remove the information concerning dismissal.
- To restore the special rank with the existing class qualification.
- To recover salary for the period of forced absence from work.
M K.Kh. served at the State Institution (hereinafter referred to as the “State Institution”) “Police Department of Pavlodar Region”.
On 19 October 2022, M K.Kh. was appointed to the position of Head of the Local Police Service Directorate of the Police Department of Pavlodar Region (hereinafter referred to as the “Local Police Service Directorate”). On 26 May 2025, a certificate of temporary incapacity for work was opened for the plaintiff.
It was closed on 20 June 2025.
In May 2025, a report was received stating that, on 29 May 2025, within the framework of criminal case No. 255500121000015 dated 3 April 2025, an unauthorised search had been conducted at the place of residence of Ma K.K., Head of the Local Police Service Directorate of the Police Department, under Part 2 of Article 301 and Part 2 of Article 262 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Code”). During the search, three laptops of the “Lenovo”, “Asus” and “HP” brands belonging to his wife, Moi A.B., as well as a mobile telephone of the “Samsung S20” brand, were seized.
The conclusion of the internal investigation dated 4 June 2025 contained a proposal to impose disciplinary liability on the plaintiff in the form of dismissal from the internal affairs bodies.
The plaintiff was not acquainted with the conclusion. By Protocol No. 13 of the Disciplinary Commission meeting dated 5 June 2025, it was recommended that disciplinary liability in the form of dismissal from the internal affairs bodies be imposed on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not acquainted with the decision of the Disciplinary Commission.
By Order No. 612 l/s of the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region” dated 5 June 2025, M K.Kh. was subjected to disciplinary liability in the form of dismissal from the internal affairs bodies, with a submission being sent for deprivation of the special rank of “Police Lieutenant Colonel”.
By a covering letter dated 9 June 2025, an extract from the order was sent to the address of Ma K.Kh. The plaintiff was acquainted with the order on 20 June 2025.
On 27 November 2025, by a ruling of the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of the City of Pavlodar, the claim of Ma K.Kh. against the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan” seeking to declare the dismissal order illegal, reinstate him in his former position, amend his personal file and remove information therefrom was left without consideration.
On 28 November 2025, by a resolution of B.B.B., Senior Investigator of the Pre-Trial Investigation Department of the Department of the National Security Committee for Pavlodar Region, proceedings in the pre-trial investigation materials No. 255500131000028 were terminated due to the failure to prove Ma K.Kh.’s involvement in the commission of the criminal offence provided for in Part 2 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code, on the grounds set out in Subparagraph 2) of Part 1 of Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (due to the absence of the elements of a criminal offence in the act).
Disagreeing with the order dated 5 June 2025, the plaintiff filed the above-mentioned claim against the defendant.
In support of his claims, he argued that the employer’s conclusions concerning the commission of misconduct discrediting the law enforcement body, expressed in the use of his official position for personal gain and the commission of a corruption offence, were unfounded.
The dismissal had been carried out prematurely, since, at the time the order was issued, there was no court conviction and the criminal case was at the pre-trial investigation stage.
During the internal investigation, his rights had been violated because he had not been acquainted with the materials of the internal investigation and had not signed the relevant documents.
Furthermore, at the time of his dismissal, his certificate of temporary incapacity for work was still open.
He requests that the dismissal order dated 5 June 2025 be declared illegal; that he be reinstated in service at the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region”; that amendments be made to his personal file and information concerning dismissal under Subparagraphs 13) and 14) of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service” (hereinafter referred to as the “Law”) be removed; that his special rank of “Police Lieutenant Colonel” be restored; and that salary for the period of forced absence from work be recovered from the defendant in the amount of 3,885,000 tenge up to the date of his actual reinstatement in service.
In its statement of defence and the supplement thereto, the representative of the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region” stated that the plaintiff had been dismissed for actions discrediting the service and for violating the requirements of official ethics.
The termination of the criminal case did not exonerate the plaintiff, since the criminal case had been terminated on non-exonerating grounds.
According to the pre-trial investigation materials, during the period from November 2024 to 20 May 2025, M K.Kh. provided protection to S.D.D., the director of the individual entrepreneur “S.Zh.Zh.”, in the unlawful distribution and sale of non-smoking tobacco products and electronic consumption systems (vapes), in exchange for unlawful monetary remuneration in the form of a bribe.
According to the response of the personnel service dated 9 October 2025, the archived personal file of Ma K.Kh. contained no certificates of temporary incapacity for work for May–June 2025.
At the time the contested order was issued, the defendant had not been aware that the plaintiff had opened a certificate of temporary incapacity for work.
Upon its closure, the certificate of temporary incapacity for work had not been registered with the medical organisations of the internal affairs bodies, and its original had not been submitted to the personnel department.
The disciplinary liability imposed on Ma K.Kh. had been carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Law.
After the dismissal order was issued, the employer had taken all measures provided for by law to deliver to the employee the documents related to the termination of employment.
On 9 June 2025 and 16 June 2025, written notices were sent to the employee informing him of the need to appear at the personnel department to receive the documents.
At the court hearing, the plaintiff M K.Kh. and his representative O.S.S. maintained the claim and requested that it be granted in full, referring to the arguments set out therein. They requested restoration of the procedural time limit for filing a claim with the court.
At the court hearing, the defendant’s representative I.B.K. disagreed with the claim and requested that it be dismissed in full, substantiating her position with the arguments set out in the statement of defence submitted to the court.
She explained that written explanations had been requested from the plaintiff orally. She also requested that the limitation period be applied.
Prosecutor D.A.M. delivered an opinion recommending that the claim be dismissed.
Witness K.D.R., questioned by the court, stated that in 2025 he had worked as Deputy Head and First Deputy Head of the Police Department. He had been the direct supervisor responsible for overseeing Ma K.Kh. On or around 25–26 May 2025, the plaintiff had informed him that a certificate of temporary incapacity for work had been opened.
Witness S.D.A. stated to the court that the internal investigation against Ma K.Kh. had been conducted by Makhmudova D.A., who had invited the plaintiff to provide explanations and participate in the meeting of the Disciplinary Commission.
In the presence of K., N., Iis, K., K., herself and M. D.A., explanations had been provided to Mu K.Kh. concerning the search, the internal investigation and the meeting of the Disciplinary Commission.
The plaintiff had visited the Directorate several times and had disagreed with the findings of the internal investigation. She could not remember the date or time because a considerable period had elapsed.
She also could not remember on which day or at what time she had signed the act refusing to provide explanations and the act refusing to participate in the Disciplinary Commission meeting.
Witness M.D.A., questioned by the court, stated that she had conducted the internal investigation against Ma K.Kh. on the instructions of the management.
She had not notified the plaintiff that he was required to provide written explanations; apparently, the Head of the Directorate and his deputy had notified him, since, in the presence of K., N., K., herself and S.D.A., explanations had been provided to Mu K.Kh. concerning the search, the internal investigation and the meeting of the Disciplinary Commission.
She could not remember the date or time because a considerable period had elapsed.
The act refusing to provide explanations and the act refusing to participate in the Disciplinary Commission meeting had been drawn up on the same day.
Regarding Claims Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4
Pursuant to Article 144 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “Labour Code”), the labour of employees of law enforcement bodies is governed by this Code, taking into account the specific features provided for by special laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other regulatory legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan that establish special conditions and procedures for entering service, performing service and terminating service, special working conditions, remuneration conditions, as well as additional benefits, privileges and restrictions.
Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Labour Code provides that, before imposing a disciplinary sanction, the employer is obliged to request a written explanation from the employee, either on paper or in the form of an electronic document certified by means of an electronic digital signature, or electronically with the provision of employee authorisation and identification.
A request to provide an explanation regarding the fact of a disciplinary offence committed shall be made in writing, either on paper or in the form of an electronic document certified by means of an electronic digital signature, and shall be delivered to the employee personally or by courier mail, postal services, facsimile communication, email or other information and communication technologies, with confirmation that the employer’s request has been received.
If the employee evades or refuses to receive the request, the employer’s representative shall draw up a corresponding act.
According to Paragraph 3 of Article 57 of the Law, where an employee commits a disciplinary offence, a written explanation shall be requested from that employee.
If, in the written explanation, the employee agrees with the fact that he or she committed the disciplinary offence, the head of the law enforcement body or an authorised manager shall be entitled to impose a disciplinary sanction without conducting an internal investigation.
The defendant did not submit to the court any evidence that the plaintiff had been requested to provide an explanation regarding the commission of misconduct discrediting the law enforcement body, namely, the use of his official position for personal gain and the commission of a corruption offence.
Moreover, at the court hearing, the defendant’s representative confirmed that the request to provide a written explanation had been made orally by employees of the personnel service.
At the same time, witness M.D.A., who conducted the internal investigation, explained that she had not sent the plaintiff a request to provide an explanation.
Furthermore, from 26 May 2025, the plaintiff had been absent from the workplace due to the opening of a certificate of temporary incapacity for work, and his telephone had been seized during the pre-trial investigation.
The court does not take into account the employer’s acts concerning the refusal to provide explanations and the refusal to participate in the Disciplinary Commission meeting, since the dates on which they were drawn up are missing.
The plaintiff also argued in the present proceedings that the disciplinary sanction had been imposed during a period of temporary incapacity for work.
According to Subparagraph 3) of Part 1 of Article 77 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Public Health and the Healthcare System” (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan have the right to freely choose a doctor and a medical organisation.
At the same time, according to Article 70 of the Law “On Law Enforcement Service”, medical care for employees is provided in the medical organisations of the internal affairs bodies, in accordance with the procedure determined by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, at the expense of budgetary funds.
Where there are no medical organisations of the internal affairs bodies or their respective departments, specialists or specialised equipment at the place where employees perform law enforcement service or at their place of residence, medical assistance shall, where medically indicated, be provided to employees by healthcare entities:
- Within the guaranteed volume of free medical care, in accordance with the Code “On Public Health and the Healthcare System” (hereinafter referred to as the “Healthcare Code”);
- Within the system of compulsory social health insurance, in accordance with the Law “On Compulsory Social Health Insurance”.
In accordance with Subparagraph 4) of Part 1 of Article 11 of the Healthcare Code, central executive bodies and other central state bodies having military medical (medical), forensic medical, forensic narcological and forensic psychiatric units, within the scope of their competence, develop and approve the rules for military medical (medical) support.
By Order No. 781 of the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 16 November 2020, the Rules for Military Medical (Medical) Support in the Military Medical (Medical) Units of the Internal Affairs Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan were approved (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules No. 781”).
Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of Rules No. 781, in order to receive medical assistance under the guaranteed volume of free medical care and within the compulsory social health insurance system, where such assistance is not provided by the medical organisations of the internal affairs bodies, the relevant persons shall be attached to healthcare entities at their place of permanent or temporary residence, taking into account the right to freely choose a primary healthcare organisation.
According to Paragraph 25 of Rules No. 781, certificates of temporary incapacity for work or medical certificates issued by other healthcare institutions to employees of law enforcement bodies and military personnel shall be registered with the medical organisations of the internal affairs bodies within four days after the end of treatment.
Thus, employees of law enforcement bodies are not prohibited from seeking medical assistance from medical institutions other than those of the internal affairs bodies. However, they must register their certificate of temporary incapacity for work or medical certificate with a medical organisation of the internal affairs bodies within four days after the end of treatment.
This requirement may be regarded as one of the restrictions imposed on employees of law enforcement bodies.
The court established that on 5 June 2025, the day on which the plaintiff was subjected to disciplinary liability and the order imposing a disciplinary sanction on him was issued, Mym K.Kh. had a certificate of temporary incapacity for work opened for the period from 26 May 2025 to 20 June 2025. This is confirmed by electronic certificate of temporary incapacity for work No. 101000152993239 issued by “D.” Limited Liability Partnership.
Furthermore, the plaintiff had informed his immediate supervisor, K.D.A., that he was undergoing treatment.
Thus, a violation of the procedure for bringing the plaintiff to disciplinary liability under Subparagraphs 13) and 14) of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law occurred.
The plaintiff’s arguments that he had not registered the certificate of temporary incapacity for work with the medical organisations of the internal affairs bodies after the end of treatment are justified, since by that time he had already been dismissed from the internal affairs bodies.
In view of the foregoing, the claims of Ma K.Kh. seeking to declare illegal and annul Order No. 612 l/s dated 5 June 2025 imposing a disciplinary sanction, to reinstate him in service, to amend his personal file and remove information concerning his dismissal under Subparagraphs 13) and 14) of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law, and to restore his special rank of “Police Lieutenant Colonel” are subject to satisfaction.
Regarding Claim No. 5
According to Article 121 of the Labour Code, the employer is obliged to compensate the employee for wages not received and other payments due to the employee in cases of unlawful transfer to another job, denial of access to the workplace, unilateral alteration of the terms of the employment contract, suspension from work or termination of the employment contract.
In accordance with Article 161 of the Labour Code, an employee reinstated in the former position shall be paid average wages for the entire period of forced absence from work, but for no more than six months.
In this case, the period of forced absence from work amounts to 8 months and 4 days, for the period from 5 June 2025 until the date of reinstatement at work.
Since the court has concluded that the dismissal was illegal and that the plaintiff must be reinstated in service, pursuant to Article 161 of the Labour Code, wages for six months of forced absence from work are subject to recovery from the defendant.
According to the salary certificate submitted by the defendant, the salary of Ma K.Kh. for the 12 months preceding dismissal, namely, from May 2024 to May 2025, amounted to 9,367,095 tenge.
The average monthly salary, calculated as 9,367,095 divided by 12, amounted to 780,591 tenge, while the average daily salary amounted to 26,020 tenge.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to wages for six months following dismissal, calculated on the basis of an average monthly salary, in the amount of 4,683,546 tenge (780,591 × 6 months).
The claim for recovery of wages in the amount of 1,665,261 tenge for 2 months and 4 days of forced absence from work should be dismissed.
Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Code stipulates that a court decision concerning reinstatement at work and the award of wages to an employee for a period not exceeding three months is subject to immediate enforcement.
Thus, the court decision awarding the plaintiff wages for three months in the amount of 2,341,773 tenge is subject to immediate enforcement.
Regarding the defendant’s application to apply the consequences of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the limitation period, the court concludes as follows.
According to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 177 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code”), limitation is the period within which a claim for the protection of a person’s violated right or legally protected interest may be satisfied.
Limitation periods and the procedure for calculating them are established by law and may not be altered by agreement between the parties.
In accordance with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 178 of the Civil Code, special limitation periods, shorter or longer than the general limitation period, may be established by legislative acts for certain types of claims.
Unless otherwise provided by legislative acts, the rules of Articles 177 and 179–186 of the Civil Code also apply to special limitation periods.
Pursuant to Article 160 of the Labour Code, the following time limits are established for participants in labour relations who are entitled, under this Code, to apply directly to a court without first applying to a conciliation commission for the consideration of individual labour disputes: for disputes concerning reinstatement at work, three months from the date on which a copy of the employer’s act terminating the employment contract is delivered or sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt.
As follows from the case materials, an extract from the order was sent on 9 June 2025; according to the contents of the acknowledgment, the plaintiff became acquainted with the order on 20 June 2025; the plaintiff first applied to the defendant with a claim on 24 September 2025; and the claim was left without consideration on 27 November 2025.
The plaintiff filed the present claim on 4 December 2025, before the ruling of the court dated 27 November 2025 had entered into legal force.
Consequently, the limitation period for the plaintiff is calculated from 9 June 2025 and expired on 9 September 2025.
The plaintiff filed a motion seeking restoration of the limitation period.
Proceeding from Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which provides that every citizen and legal entity has the right to judicial protection of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, the court, having analysed the submitted certificates of temporary incapacity for work and taking into account that the dismissal occurred during a period of temporary incapacity for work, that the authorities refused to provide the materials of the internal investigation and procedural documents, and that a resolution terminating the pre-trial investigation dated 28 November 2025 existed, concludes that the time limit for applying to the court was missed for a valid reason.
Under these circumstances, the court concludes that the consequences of missing the limitation period should not be applied.
According to Part 1 of Article 270 of the Civil Procedure Code, issuing a separate ruling is a right of the court where violations of legality are identified during a court hearing.
During the consideration of the civil case, the court found no grounds for issuing a separate ruling.
According to Part 1 of Article 117 of the Civil Procedure Code, the state duty from which the plaintiff 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 satisfied part of the claim.
Since the plaintiff was exempted from paying the state duty when filing the claim in the labour dispute, the defendant is therefore required to pay a state duty in the amount of 54,699 tenge to the state budget.
At the same time, the plaintiff must be refunded the excess state duty paid in the amount of 38,750 tenge.
Guided by Articles 223–226 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court
HEREBY DECIDES:
To partially satisfy the claim of Ma K.Kh. against the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan” seeking to declare the dismissal order illegal, reinstate him in his former position, amend his personal file and remove information concerning dismissal, restore his special rank with the existing class qualification, and recover wages for the period of forced absence from work.
To declare illegal and annul Order No. 612 l/s of the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region” dated 5 June 2025, “On the Imposition of a Disciplinary Sanction”, issued in respect of Ma K.Kh.
To reinstate Ma K.Kh. in his former position as Head of the Local Police Service Directorate of the Police Department of Pavlodar Region.
To amend the personal file and remove information concerning dismissal under Subparagraphs 13) and 14) of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Law Enforcement Service”.
To restore Ma K.Kh. to the special rank of “Police Lieutenant Colonel” with the existing class qualification.
To recover from the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, in favour of M.K.Kh., wages for the period of forced absence from work in the amount of 4,683,546 (four million six hundred eighty-three thousand five hundred forty-six) tenge.
To dismiss the claim for recovery of wages in the amount of 1,665,261 (one million six hundred sixty-five thousand two hundred sixty-one) tenge.
The decision concerning the reinstatement of Ma K.Kh. at work and the recovery of wages for three months in the amount of 2,341,773 (two million three hundred forty-one thousand seven hundred seventy-three) tenge is subject to immediate enforcement.
To recover from the State Institution “Police Department of Pavlodar Region of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, in favour of the state, court costs in the form of state duty in the amount of 54,699 (fifty-four thousand six hundred ninety-nine) tenge.
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
