Disciplinary Responsibility of the Internal Security Forces

Abstract

Legal responsibility is closely linked to the process of reforming the reality of responsibility for the Internal Security Forces, as this is linked to the legislation that works to clarify the disciplinary punishment that falls on the Internal Security Forces for the responsibility or error they bear while performing their job duties. Therefore, we find that positive legislation sets texts that aim to correct the error issued by members of the Internal Security Forces as a public employee. It is not a vengeful process as much as it aims to reform the public function and the public employee. The disciplinary responsibility process is surrounded by a set of controls and guarantees established in favor of the guilty employee.

It is also known as the employee's commitment to bear the consequences of his failure to fulfill his job duties that are regulated by law, and this is the basis of disciplinary responsibility, which is the failure to fulfill a job duty, whether positive or negative, to ensure good working conditions and its continuity through the penalty issued by the administrative head.

The most important elements on which disciplinary responsibility is based is the state of disciplinary violation, as it is not possible to punish and discipline members of the internal security forces without committing an act that is punishable, and as we noted in the previous research, the naming of the disciplinary violation is one of the sources of difference in jurisprudence, as it was called a disciplinary crime, which is the most common in jurisprudence and the judiciary, and some called it an administrative sin, and some called it a disciplinary violation, while the Supreme Administrative Court in Egypt used the term disciplinary violation.