Dismissal from Public Service and Reinstatement Lawsuit: Legal Guide for Police Officers, Military Personnel, Teachers, and Other Public Servants

The subject examined consists of status termination procedures, commonly referred to as "dismissal from public service" in daily parlance, but which are not legally uniform. Therefore, we must clearly state this distinction at the outset of our article: Disciplinary penalty of dismissal from civil service under the Civil Servants Law No. 657:

Pursuant to Article 125/E of Law No. 657, it is the dismissal of a civil servant from public service so as not to be reappointed as a civil servant ever again. This penalty is the most severe disciplinary sanction.

Regarding police, gendarmerie, and coast guard personnel, dismissal from the profession:

A special disciplinary regime applies. Acts requiring dismissal from the profession regarding law enforcement personnel are regulated separately and in detail in Article 8 of Law No. 7068. Acts such as using or facilitating the use of drugs; abusing authority and influence for personal gain; and sharing confidential information and documents with unauthorized persons fall within this scope.

Regarding military personnel, separation from the Armed Forces:

Disciplinary offenses requiring the penalty of separation are regulated in Article 20 of the Turkish Armed Forces Disciplinary Law No. 6413. "Conduct hindering service," "moral weakness," "disclosing classified information," "engaging in ideological or political activities," and affiliation with terrorist organizations are evaluated separately under this regime.

State of Emergency (OHAL)/Decree-Law (KHK) or public service dismissal measures:

They may possess a different legal nature and application procedure than disciplinary penalties. Therefore, this article should not imply that the procedures and applications during the State of Emergency period are subject to the same procedure as general disciplinary investigations. In particular, the type of procedure, underlying regulation, notification, competent authority, and application deadline must be verified based on the specific file.

---

The core legal question is:

Is the dismissal or separation order—the most severe status sanction—based on an act explicitly regulated by law; has the act been established through a lawful investigation based on sufficient and reliable evidence; and has the individual been granted a genuine opportunity for defense?

Pursuant to Article 129 of the Constitution, no disciplinary penalty may be imposed unless the right to defense is granted, and disciplinary decisions cannot be excluded from judicial review. Furthermore, Article 125 of the Constitution stipulates that judicial remedies are available against all actions of the administration and that the date of written notification marks the beginning of the litigation period.

Drug use, bribery, offenses against sexual inviolability, abuse of office, unauthorized and unexcused absenteeism, allegations of affiliation with terrorist organizations, and disclosure of confidential information are the primary factual grounds that may lead to dismissal or separation depending on the status. However, the severity of these facts does not eliminate the safeguards of proof and procedure.

---

PROCEDURAL LAW ANALYSIS

Competent court and legal basis

As a rule, actions for the annulment of individual disciplinary penalties, disbarment, or separation from the Armed Forces are heard in the administrative court. The specific administrative court where the lawsuit is filed is determined based on the concrete transaction, taking into account the location of the administration that enacted the measure or the applicable special venue rule.

The Council of State (Danıştay) serves as the court of first instance only for certain disputes exhaustively listed in Article 24 of the Council of State Law No. 2575. The general rule is that individual personnel disciplinary actions are subject to an annulment action filed in the administrative court rather than directly in the Council of State.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in administrative litigation is determined in accordance with Law No. 2577 and relevant special jurisdictional provisions. The website article does not state definitively and misleadingly that "every dismissal lawsuit is filed in Ankara." Jurisdiction is determined by the type of action, the authority enacting it, the assignee's duty station, and special regulations.

Statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit

Pursuant to Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, unless a different period is prescribed by special law, the general limitation period for filing an action in administrative courts is 60 days starting from the day following written notification. The failure of the administrative act to indicate the legal remedies and deadlines may raise an issue that requires separate evaluation under Article 40 of the Constitution; however, no automatic legal conclusion regarding the time limit can be drawn in a given case.

Administrative law attorney consultant By working with [us/counsel], as soon as the dismissal decision is served, the service receipt and the date of the transaction must be preserved, and an immediate review must be conducted to determine whether a special status, state of emergency (OHAL) procedure, or special statutory regime applies.

Stay of execution

Dismissal, disbarment, and separation measures produce severe consequences on an individual's compensation, social security, professional reputation, and career path. Therefore, a stay of execution may be requested concurrently with the annulment lawsuit.

Pursuant to Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), two conditions must be met simultaneously for a stay of execution:

The execution of the administrative act giving rise to damages that are difficult or impossible to compensate,

The administrative act being clearly unlawful.

For example, an act executed without taking the final defense, keeping the defense period below the statutory limit, failing to evaluate exculpatory evidence in the investigation report at all, or the act lacking a concrete justification may strengthen the claim of clear unlawfulness.

Appeal and further appeal (İstinaf and temyiz)

Pursuant to Article 45 of the İYUK, an appeal (istinaf) against the administrative court decision may be filed within 30 days from the notification of the decision. Pursuant to Article 46/1-d of the İYUK, decisions of the regional administrative court regarding annulment lawsuits filed against acts resulting in dismissal from public service may be appealed (temyiz) before the Council of State within 30 days.

In this respect, acts of dismissal from civil service differ from certain routine administrative disputes that become final based on monetary value.

Mediation as a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit

There is no mandatory mediation prerequisite for lawsuits in administrative jurisdiction concerning the annulment of disciplinary penalties, status disputes of a reinstatement nature, and related administrative lawsuits.

Method of filing a lawsuit: Distinction between annulment and full remedy actions

The request to set aside the removal act is in the nature of an annulment action. The decision to be rendered by the administrative court aims at the removal of the act from the legal order.

For financial and personnel rights deprived due to dismissal, a full remedy claim may come into question depending on the concrete circumstances. However, the period, salary component, and interest commencement date for which financial rights are requested must be carefully determined based on the type of act and established judicial practice. Therefore, the article should avoid the claim that a specific amount or interest will be automatically collected in every dismissal lawsuit.

---

CLAIM ITEM ANALYSIS

Annulment of the act of dismissal, removal from the profession, or separation: Article 125/E of Law No. 657; pursuant to the status, Article 8 of Law No. 7068 or Article 20 of Law No. 6413. Generally, the 60-day statutory period for filing a lawsuit follows the written notification; if there is a special regulation, it is examined separately. This claim is not directly a monetary receivable.

Stay of execution: Article 27 of İYUK; upon the concurrent fulfillment of the conditions of clear unlawfulness and irreparable damages. It is not a monetary receivable. The violation of the right to defense and insufficiency of evidence support the argument of clear unlawfulness.

Reinstatement to office and correction of personnel status: The principle of proper execution of the annulment decision by the administration. The finalization of the annulment decision and the execution process depend on the specific case file. Its relationship with pecuniary rights is evaluated separately.

Pecuniary rights deprived of: Evaluated alongside the annulment action in a full remedy claim or during the execution process of the court judgment. A separate analysis is required in terms of the specific transaction, type of lawsuit, initial claim date, and statute of limitations. As a rule, statutory interest is debated based on the nature of the claim; the starting date is not automatic.

Annulment of the dismissal action based on the allegation of bribery: Correct legal characterization of the act, investigation evidence, and the impact of the criminal case file. Disciplinary and criminal statutes of limitations are separate; the legal basis of the transaction is examined individually. If financial consequences arise, they are determined based on the specific claim.

Dismissal from the profession based on the allegation of drug use: Clear definition of the act under the special personnel regime; sampling, analysis, chain of custody, defense, and investigation. The administrative lawsuit period starting from the service of the decision is essential. Financial consequences depend on the specific case file.

---

PRECEDENT CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2022/3281, K. 2025/6119, D. 22.12.2025 — In favor of the public official

It emphasizes that all information and documents, both in favor of and against the public official, must be collected during the investigation. The aspect of the decision to be used in the article is as follows: A dismissal penalty cannot be established based solely on opinion or unreviewable generalizations. The attributed act must be demonstrated with concrete, reliable, and reviewable evidence. This decision serves to reinforce the notion that the approach of “where there is an allegation, there is a dismissal” cannot be legally accepted in all dismissal lawsuits. However, this does not mean that every witness statement is worthless; the consistency and source of the witness testimony, whether it is supported by other findings, and whether the defense can effectively respond to these statements are decisive factors.

2. Council of State 12th Chamber, E. 2019/1063, K. 2023/3751, D. 10.07.2023 — In favor of the civil servant

A dismissal penalty from public service was imposed on an official working in an elementary school on the allegation of sexual abuse. The Council of State found the action, which was instituted by the High Disciplinary Board without granting the right to a final defense in the manner prescribed by Law No. 657, to be unlawful. The critical principle is as follows: Allowing the examination of the investigation file and properly obtaining the final defense in a dismissal penalty from public service is not merely a formal detail. The right to defense is a fundamental safeguard guaranteed under Article 129 of the Constitution. The decision also indicates that separate and careful claims must be established regarding monetary rights. In the specific case, the Council of State also issued a reversal decision regarding the monetary rights portion. Therefore, in the article, definitive promises independent of the case regarding the financial consequences of the annulment decision should be avoided.

3. Council of State 12th Chamber, E. 2019/2928, K. 2023/3054, D. 31.05.2023 — In favor of the teacher

A dismissal penalty was imposed on a teacher on the allegation of sexual abuse against a student. The court of first instance dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the evidence was sufficient; the regional administrative court, however, determined that a proper final defense had not been obtained regarding the dismissal penalty and annulled the action, and the Council of State upheld this decision. This decision is particularly important for teachers: The severity of the allegation in terms of society and public service does not render the statutory defense procedure ineffective. The administration cannot bypass the essential elements of the right to defense by relying on the gravity of the accusation.

5. Council of State 12th Chamber, E. 2023/3536, K. 2023/5388, D. 30.10.2023 — In favor of the civil servant regarding the allegation of bribery

The decision has been rendered and has become final. The Council of State took into account the close connection between the act forming the basis of the disciplinary investigation and the material facts in the criminal proceedings, and concluded that the act could not be proven with concrete, convincing evidence.

7. Council of State 12th Chamber, E. 2019/3838, K. 2023/5018, D. 17.10.2023 — In favor of military personnel

A penalty of separation from the Armed Forces was imposed on a petty officer on the grounds of “engaging in behavior hindering service” under the allegation of trading in historical artifacts. The separation penalty was applied while the criminal proceedings had not yet become final. The Council of State concluded that a reassessment should be made by taking into account the outcome of the criminal proceedings. While acknowledging the special nature of military discipline, the decision demonstrates that the separation penalty cannot be applied automatically and without oversight. Particularly in files where the material facts in the criminal case file are decisive, premature and deficient evaluations by the administration may lead to unlawfulness.

6. Council of State 8th Chamber, E. 2022/2798, K. 2025/7683, D. 16.10.2025 — Against law enforcement personnel

Upon the detection of THC positivity in the urine sample of a security guard, his dismissal from duty on the grounds of drug use constitutes the subject of the dispute. The Council of State deemed the properly conducted investigation and the finding of drug use to be sufficient, and found the action to be lawful. This decision serves as a significant precedent in favor of the administration in files concerning drug use. It should be stated in a balanced manner in the article: If a positive laboratory finding is supported by a properly collected sample, other evidence within the scope of the file, and the defense process, the penalty of dismissal from the profession may pass judicial review. This decision does not mean that the outcome will be the same in every file involving a drug allegation. The conditions under which the sample was collected, the analysis method, the content of the report, the timing of the allegation, the chain of custody records, and the counter-arguments of the defense are evaluated separately in each specific case.

---

EVIDENCE EVALUATION AND CORRELATION

In a dismissal or reinstatement lawsuit, the evidentiary strategy is not limited merely to “submitting an acquittal decision.” Both the substantive grounds and the procedure of the action must be examined separately.

Dismissal / removal / separation decision: Reason, legal basis, transaction date, and decision-making authority

Notification document: Commencement of the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit

Disciplinary investigation report: Allegations, evidence, and investigator's assessment

Request for defense and service record: Defense period, clarity of allegations, and procedural compliance

Final defense invitation and submitted defense: Effective exercise of the right to defense before the High Disciplinary Board

Disciplinary board decision minute: Authority of the decision-making body, justification, and voting tally

Criminal investigation and prosecution documents: Acquittal, conviction, non-prosecution decision, or conflicting factual determinations regarding the same material event

Laboratory / toxicology report: Nature and result of the test in drug-related allegations

Sampling and chain of custody records: Reliability of the sample, identification, and procedural disputes

Camera recordings, HTS records, institutional logs, duty rosters: Time, location, and person elements of the allegation

Witness statements: Direct or indirect corroboration of the allegation; inconsistencies

Personnel file, certificate of achievement, and awards: Assessment of lesser penalties, discretion, and proportionality independent of the establishment of the act

In drug-related cases, the chain of custody for sampling, the laboratory's reporting method, the possibility of a secondary review, and the attribution of the report to the specific individual and date are of particular importance. In bribery cases, the flow of funds, communication records, the positions of witnesses, the nexus to official duties, and the establishment of material facts in the criminal file come to the forefront.

---

OPPOSING PARTY'S PROBABLE DEFENSE

“Disciplinary law is independent of criminal law.”

Assessments regarding the absence of the act cannot be ignored by the disciplinary authority. The decision of the 12th Chamber of the Danıştay dated 30.10.2023 demonstrates that insufficient evidence in the criminal file and an acquittal are significant regarding the disciplinary penalty.

“The nature of the allegation necessitates dismissal from service in terms of the reliability of public service.”

The severity of the allegation naturally brings into question the administration's obligation to protect public service. However, judicial review focuses on the establishment of the act, its legal basis, the competent authority, and the right to defense prior to the severity of the allegation. A severe accusation does not transform weak evidence into strong evidence.

“Witness statements are sufficient.”

A witness statement constitutes evidence; however, particularly in the case of the most severe disciplinary penalty, the origin, concreteness, and consistency of the statement, as well as whether it is supported by other data, must be scrutinized. The decision of the 2nd Chamber of the Danıştay dated 22.12.2025 is significant in this respect as it dictates that abstract and general witness accounts cannot be deemed sufficient on their own.

“Since the drug test came back positive, the action is unquestionably lawful.”

A positive test result may constitute strong evidence. In the decision of the 8th Chamber of the Danıştay dated 16.10.2025, the administrative action was deemed lawful in conjunction with a duly conducted investigation and test findings. Conversely, in every file, the collection, preservation, and analysis of the sample, as well as the clarity of the report and its attribution to the individual, must be audited.

“A defense statement has been taken; there is no procedural deficiency.”

The mere existence of a written defense is insufficient. The civil servant must be informed of which specific act is attributed to them along with which evidence; the statutory minimum period for defense must be granted; and the safeguard of a final defense must be implemented in the penalty of dismissal from civil service. Decisions of the Danıştay dated 10.07.2023 and 31.05.2023 support this approach.

---

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

The decisive points for the judge are as follows:

Upon which statute or specific disciplinary regulation is the action based?

Does the alleged act truly correspond to the dismissal/separation offense explicitly stipulated in the relevant legislation?

Has the investigator collected evidence both in favor of and against the accused?

Are the witness statements based on specific factual knowledge, or on general opinion and hearsay?

Does the request for defense clearly state the allegation?

Has the statutory period been granted for the defense?

Has the guarantee of the final defense and file review been provided in the dismissal penalty?

What findings do the criminal investigation or criminal court judgment contain regarding the same material event?

Is the administrative action's reasoning personalized and subject to judicial review?

Vulnerabilities include leaving the date of service ambiguous, abstract defenses merely in the form of “I am innocent,” failing to establish a connection between the evidence and the factual allegation, and failing to particularize procedural irregularities in the investigation file.

---

LITIGATION STRATEGY

In wrongful termination and reinstatement lawsuits, an effective core strategy must be established in three stages:

Targeting the legal basis of the administrative act: It must be demonstrated whether the imputed act truly corresponds to the dismissal or separation offense set forth in the law.

Reviewing the investigation and defense procedure: The request for defense, time limits, opportunity to review the file, final defense, investigator's authority, and the reasoning of the board decision must be examined separately.

Analyzing the material fact through evidence: Consistency must be sought among the criminal file, laboratory reports, records, witness statements, duty rosters, and digital data.

In cases involving allegations of drug offenses and bribery, rather than adopting a “no claim exists” approach, efforts should focus on the reliability of the evidence and the substantiation of the allegation. Even in statuses where public trust and professional discipline are of paramount importance, such as teaching, policing, and military service, the right to a defense and the principle of sufficient evidence remain indispensable.

---

About Us – Contact Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ

Bar Association Information:

• Istanbul Bar Association No. 1: 77008
• Union of Turkish Bar Associations: 187392

Address:
Yakuplu Mahallesi, Hürriyet Bulvarı Skyport Residence Kat:12 No:133
Beylikdüzü, İstanbul

Contact:
📞 Telephone: 0 532 669 34 90
📞 Alternative Phone: 0 532 732 34 90