TUI rejects appeal by PSP chief in disciplinary case

[Photo: Renato Marques]

The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) has ruled in a case involving a chief of the Public Security Police Force (PSP) and the force’s disciplinary proceedings against him.

The case dates back to October and November 2023, when an investigation was launched into the officer’s conduct. He was accused of leaving his workplace seven times during overtime hours and failing to wear his PSP uniform while on duty.

According to the allegations, the officer left the workplace without notifying or obtaining permission from his superiors, leading to suspicions that he had violated his duties of professional conduct and attendance.

The PSP initiated disciplinary proceedings and, following an investigation, the acting commander of the PSP imposed a disciplinary penalty of a 20-day fine on April 9, 2024.

However, on June 13, 2024, the Secretary for security issued an order stating that the investigator had failed to determine whether the alleged misconduct constituted unjustified absences under the Civil Service Regulations.

The Secretary also found that prolonged absence from the workplace during overtime hours did not, by itself, constitute grounds for negligence or a misunderstanding of duties prescribed by law, concluding that the investigator had improperly applied the relevant legal provisions.

Given these deficiencies, the Secretary revoked the acting commander’s decision and ordered a supplementary investigation to bring new charges against the officer and proceed in accordance with the law.

Authorities were also instructed to examine whether the officer remained entitled to supplementary remuneration during the periods in which he was allegedly absent from the workplace.

In a twist, the officer appealed the decision, first to the Court of Second Instance, which dismissed the case, and later to the TUI.

According to the TUI’s ruling, the officer sought to have the case concluded with the original 20-day fine, fearing that a full review of the matter could result in a harsher penalty.

The TUI found that he had no right to appeal because the revocation of the original penalty was, in principle, favorable to him. As such, his rights had not been adversely affected in a way that would justify an appeal.

The court noted that while the officer anticipated the possibility of a more severe penalty in the future, this was “nothing more than mere conjecture and not a fact.” Since no new sanction had been imposed, the judges concluded that he had no legal basis to challenge the revocation of the original penalty.