← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 06482-2007 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 2007
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo, finding that the precautionary suspension without initiating disciplinary proceedings for over a year violated due process and the right to a prompt administrative procedure; it ordered a final decision within one month if the proceeding had not concluded.La Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el recurso de amparo al considerar que la medida cautelar de separación del cargo sin iniciar el procedimiento disciplinario por más de un año violó el debido proceso y el derecho a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido; ordenó dictar acto final en el plazo de un mes si el procedimiento no había concluido.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber reviewed an amparo filed by a Ministry of Public Education official who was suspended from his position as school director via a precautionary measure starting January 12, 2006. The measure was repeatedly extended without a timely disciplinary proceeding, leaving the petitioner suspended for over a year at the time of filing with no chance to defend himself. The Chamber noted that while the administration may impose precautionary measures to protect public service, they must be proportional and reasonable; for an ante causam measure, the disciplinary proceeding must begin within one month of the measure. The Chamber found that the excessive and unjustified delay caused defenselessness and violated the rights to due process and a prompt and complete administrative procedure. The amparo was granted.La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo presentado por un funcionario del Ministerio de Educación Pública que fue separado de su puesto como director de escuela mediante una medida cautelar, desde el 12 de enero de 2006. Esta medida fue prorrogada en varias ocasiones sin que se iniciara oportunamente un procedimiento administrativo disciplinario, lo que llevó a que para la fecha de interposición del amparo el servidor llevara más de un año separado de su cargo sin posibilidad de defenderse. La Sala recordó que la administración puede imponer medidas cautelares para proteger el servicio público, pero que estas deben respetar los principios de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad, y, tratándose de una medida cautelar ante causam, el procedimiento disciplinario debe iniciarse en el plazo de un mes desde su adopción. El tribunal concluyó que el plazo transcurrido fue excesivo e injustificado, causando indefensión al afectado, y que la prolongada medida sin iniciar el procedimiento violó sus derechos al debido proceso y a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido. Por ello, declaró con lugar el recurso.
Key excerptExtracto clave
According to this Chamber's case law, the petitioner's suspension from duty is indeed an ante causam precautionary measure, since it was ordered before the initiation of a disciplinary administrative procedure, and therefore the procedure should have commenced within one month. Ultimately, the Chamber finds that the time elapsed since the challenged precautionary measure was ordered in February 2006 is plainly excessive and exceeds the bounds of reasonableness; moreover, it caused the petitioner's defenselessness because the excessive and unjustified delay was aggravated by the impossibility of defending himself in an administrative proceeding. Based on all the foregoing, the Chamber holds that the action must be granted, because the petitioner's reassignment as a precautionary measure was ordered for a period far exceeding reasonableness without initiating disciplinary proceedings against him.De conformidad con la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal, la medida de separación del puesto que soporta el amparado, ciertamente, se erige como una medida cautelar ante causam pues se dictó previamente al inicio de un procedimiento administrativo disciplinario, por lo que el procedimiento debió iniciarse en el plazo de un mes. En definitiva, a juicio de este Tribunal el plazo transcurrido desde que se dictó la medida cautelar cuestionada en febrero del 2006, evidentemente, resulta excesivo, y supera los límites de lo razonable, asimismo, ha provocado indefensión al amparado pues la postergación excesiva e injustificada de la medida se ha visto, agravada con la imposibilidad para defenderse en un procedimiento administrativo. Con fundamento en todo lo anterior, este Tribunal estima que el recurso debe ser declarado con lugar, pues la reubicación del recurrente como medida cautelar se ordenó por un plazo sobradamente mayor al razonable sin incoarse un procedimiento disciplinario en su contra.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En casos muy calificados y cuando, por la naturaleza de la presunta falta, se considerare perjudicial la permanencia del servidor en el puesto, el Director de Personal ordenará la suspensión en el cargo o su traslado temporal a otro puesto, mediante acción de personal."
"In highly qualified cases and when, by the nature of the alleged fault, the employee's remaining in the post is considered harmful, the Personnel Director shall order suspension from duty or temporary transfer to another post, through a personnel action."
Considerando IV (citando el Estatuto de Servicio Civil, numeral 67)
"En casos muy calificados y cuando, por la naturaleza de la presunta falta, se considerare perjudicial la permanencia del servidor en el puesto, el Director de Personal ordenará la suspensión en el cargo o su traslado temporal a otro puesto, mediante acción de personal."
Considerando IV (citando el Estatuto de Servicio Civil, numeral 67)
"La medida de separación del puesto que soporta el amparado, ciertamente, se erige como una medida cautelar ante causam pues se dictó previamente al inicio de un procedimiento administrativo disciplinario, por lo que el procedimiento debió iniciarse en el plazo de un mes."
"The petitioner's suspension from duty is indeed an ante causam precautionary measure, since it was ordered before the initiation of a disciplinary administrative procedure, and therefore the procedure should have commenced within one month."
Considerando IV
"La medida de separación del puesto que soporta el amparado, ciertamente, se erige como una medida cautelar ante causam pues se dictó previamente al inicio de un procedimiento administrativo disciplinario, por lo que el procedimiento debió iniciarse en el plazo de un mes."
Considerando IV
"El plazo transcurrido desde que se dictó la medida cautelar cuestionada en febrero del 2006, evidentemente, resulta excesivo, y supera los límites de lo razonable, asimismo, ha provocado indefensión al amparado."
"The time elapsed since the challenged precautionary measure was ordered in February 2006 is plainly excessive and exceeds the bounds of reasonableness; moreover, it caused the petitioner's defenselessness."
Considerando IV
"El plazo transcurrido desde que se dictó la medida cautelar cuestionada en febrero del 2006, evidentemente, resulta excesivo, y supera los límites de lo razonable, asimismo, ha provocado indefensión al amparado."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
“ IV.- SPECIFIC CASE. In cases such as the one under review, the possibility of imposing a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) by the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Public Education is provided for in the Civil Service Statute in its article 67, which determines that “In highly qualified cases and when, due to the nature of the alleged offense, the permanence of the servant in the post is considered detrimental, the Director of Personnel shall order the suspension in office or the temporary transfer to another post, by means of a personnel action”. Likewise, this Court in previous decisions has reiterated that the Administration may well take this type of necessary precautionary measures in order to prevent the public service from being affected by the presence of a servant to whom irregularities are imputed, without this meaning that the Administration may freely dispose of the rights of the servant under investigation, since the measure must be subject to limits of proportionality and reasonableness. Now, in the specific case, it has been proven that since January 12, 2006, the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Public Education adopted the precautionary measure of separating the petitioner (amparado) from his post as Director of the El Rótulo School in La Rita de Pococí.
Since then, through decisions of May 12, 2006, August 18, 2006, and February 1, 2007, the precautionary measure ordered against the petitioner has been extended. In this regard, it was also shown that it was not until after the filing and notification of the decision that admitted this amparo proceeding, that the Disciplinary Regime Area of the Ministry of Public Education formally notified official Aparicio Nieto of the respective official statement of charges (traslado de cargos) and the summons for the exercise of his right of defense, through the decision of March 22, 2007. That is to say, as of the filing date of this appeal (recurso), the respondent authority has kept the petitioner separated from his post for more than a year, which openly contravenes the petitioner’s constitutional rights to due process (debido proceso) and to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure.
In accordance with the jurisprudence of this Court, the measure of separation from the post that the petitioner endures is, certainly, constituted as a precautionary measure ante causam since it was ordered previously to the initiation of a disciplinary administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo disciplinario), and therefore the procedure should have been initiated within a period of one month. In short, in the judgment of this Court, the period elapsed since the questioned precautionary measure was ordered in February 2006 is evidently excessive and exceeds the limits of what is reasonable; likewise, it has caused defenselessness (indefensión) to the petitioner, since the excessive and unjustified postponement of the measure has been aggravated by the impossibility of defending himself in an administrative procedure. Based on all the foregoing, this Court considers that the appeal must be granted (declarado con lugar), since the relocation of the petitioner as a precautionary measure was ordered for a period amply greater than what is reasonable without a disciplinary procedure being initiated against him. Consequently, the appropriate course is to grant the appeal and indicate that, should the disciplinary procedure not have been concluded, the respondent authorities must issue a final act within a period of one month counted from the notification of this judgment.“ “ IV.- CONCRETE CASE. In cases such as the one under analysis, the possibility of imposing a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) by the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Public Education is provided for in the Civil Service Statute in its numeral 67, which determines that “In highly qualified cases and when, due to the nature of the alleged fault, the permanence of the servant in the post is considered harmful, the Director of Personnel shall order the suspension from the position or his temporary transfer to another post, by means of personnel action.” Likewise, this Tribunal in previous resolutions has reiterated that the Administration may well take this type of necessary precautionary measures in order to prevent the public service from being affected by the presence of a servant who is accused of irregularities, without this meaning that the Administration can freely dispose of the rights of the servant under investigation, since the measure must be subject to limits of proportionality and reasonableness. Now then, in the concrete case it has been proven that since January 12, 2006, the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Public Education adopted the precautionary measure of separating the petitioner (amparado) from his post as Director of the El Rótulo de La Rita de Pococí School. Since then, by means of resolutions of May 12, 2006, August 18, 2006, and February 1, 2007, the precautionary measure ordered against the petitioner has been extended. In this regard, it was also demonstrated that it was not until after the filing and notification of the resolution that granted leave to proceed with this amparo process, that the Disciplinary Regime Area of the Ministry of Public Education formally notified the official Aparicio Nieto of the respective statement of charges (traslado de cargos) and the summons for the exercise of his right of defense, through the resolution of March 22, 2007. That is to say, as of the date of filing of this appeal, the respondent authority has kept the petitioner separated from his post for more than a year, which openly contravenes the petitioner's constitutional rights to due process (debido proceso) and to a prompt and fulfilled administrative procedure. In accordance with the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the measure of separation from the post that the petitioner endures, certainly, stands as a precautionary measure ante causam since it was issued previously to the initiation of a disciplinary administrative procedure, for which reason the procedure should have been initiated within a period of one month. Ultimately, in the judgment of this Tribunal, the period elapsed since the challenged precautionary measure was issued in February 2006, evidently, proves excessive, and exceeds the limits of what is reasonable, likewise, it has caused defenselessness (indefensión) to the petitioner since the excessive and unjustified postponement of the measure has been aggravated by the impossibility of defending himself in an administrative procedure. Based on all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the appeal must be granted, since the relocation of the petitioner as a precautionary measure was ordered for a period amply greater than what is reasonable without initiating a disciplinary procedure against him. Consequently, it is appropriate to grant the appeal and indicate that, if the disciplinary procedure has not concluded, the respondent authorities must issue the final act within a period of one month counted from the notification of this judgment. “
“ IV.- CASO CONCRETO. En casos como el que se analiza, la posibilidad de imponer una medida cautelar por parte de la Dirección General de Personal del Ministerio de Educación Pública, se encuentra prevista en el Estatuto del Servicio Civil en su numeral 67, el cual determina que “En casos muy calificados y cuando, por la naturaleza de la presunta falta, se considerare perjudicial la permanencia del servidor en el puesto, el Director de Personal ordenará la suspensión en el cargo o su traslado temporal a otro puesto, mediante acción de personal”. Del mismo modo, este Tribunal en resoluciones anteriores ha reiterado que bien puede la Administración tomar este tipo de medidas cautelares necesarias a fin de evitar que el servicio público no se vea afectado por la presencia de un servidor al que se le imputan irregularidades, sin que ello signifique que la Administración pueda libremente disponer de los derechos del servidor sometido a investigación, pues la medida debe estar sujeta a límites de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad. Ahora bien, en el caso concreto se ha acreditado que desde el 12 de enero de 2006, la Dirección General de Personal del Ministerio de Educación Pública adoptó la medida cautelar de separar al amparado de su puesto de Director de la Escuela El Rótulo de La Rita de Pococí. Desde entonces, mediante resoluciones de 12 de mayo de 2006, 18 de agosto de 2006 y 1° de febrero de 2007, se ha prorrogado la medida cautelar dispuesta contra el amparado. Sobre el particular, se demostró también que no fue sino hasta después de la interposición y notificación de la resolución que dio curso a este proceso de amparo, que el Área del Régimen Disciplinario del Ministerio de Educación Pública notificó, formalmente, al funcionario Aparicio Nieto el respectivo traslado de cargos y el emplazamiento para el ejercicio de su derecho de defensa, mediante la resolución del 22 de marzo de 2007. Es decir, a la fecha de interposición de este recurso, la autoridad recurrida ha mantenido al amparado separado de su puesto por más de un año, lo que contraviene, abiertamente, los derechos constitucionales del recurrente al debido proceso y a un procedimiento administrativo pronto y cumplido. De conformidad con la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal, la medida de separación del puesto que soporta el amparado, ciertamente, se erige como una medida cautelar ante causam pues se dictó previamente al inicio de un procedimiento administrativo disciplinario, por lo que el procedimiento debió iniciarse en el plazo de un mes. En definitiva, a juicio de este Tribunal el plazo transcurrido desde que se dictó la medida cautelar cuestionada en febrero del 2006, evidentemente, resulta excesivo, y supera los límites de lo razonable, asimismo, ha provocado indefensión al amparado pues la postergación excesiva e injustificada de la medida se ha visto, agravada con la imposibilidad para defenderse en un procedimiento administrativo. Con fundamento en todo lo anterior, este Tribunal estima que el recurso debe ser declarado con lugar, pues la reubicación del recurrente como medida cautelar se ordenó por un plazo sobradamente mayor al razonable sin incoarse un procedimiento disciplinario en su contra. En consecuencia, lo procedente es declarar con lugar el recurso e indicar que, de no haber concluido el procedimiento disciplinario, las autoridades recurridas deben dictar acto final en el plazo de un mes contado a partir de la notificación de la presente sentencia. “
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.