Obtaining two consecutive performance evaluations with a score lower than seventy percent (70%), which are final and binding, once the procedure for challenging the evaluation has been exhausted and provided that the responsibility of the public servant for said deficient evaluation has been accredited, shall be a cause for immediate dismissal, applicable to every public servant. Said evaluation must be duly justified by the immediate supervisor who assigns it and by the hierarchical authority who confirms it, if it has been appealed.
The entities and organs included must apply remedial plans agreed upon with the public servant and with the advice of human resources that allow them to determine the causes for which public servants obtain a score lower than seventy percent (70%) and apply actions to improve their performance. If, despite the application of the remedial plan, the public servant fails to improve their performance and obtains another consecutive score lower than seventy percent (70%), the cause for immediate dismissal shall be established.
Any justified dismissal shall be understood as without responsibility for the Public Administration and shall cause the public servant to lose all the rights granted to them by this law and the applicable regulations in each job family, except for the proportional labor amounts that correspond and those acquired under the current pension regimes, provided it is carried out in compliance with the following rules:
- a)In all units under the scope of application of this law, a single special administrative dismissal procedure shall be applied, guaranteeing the satisfaction of due process and its principles, which must be concluded by a final act within a period of two months, starting from its initiation. The preliminary investigation, in cases where it is required, shall not initiate the procedure indicated in the preceding paragraph; however, it must commence, under penalty of prescription, no later than within a period of one month from when the head of the entity becomes aware, whether ex officio or by complaint, of the possible commission of a fault by one of their servants. The same one-month prescription period shall apply if, once the aforementioned preliminary investigation has been initiated, it remains stalled due to the fault of the Administration.
For the purposes of the two-month period indicated in the first paragraph of this subsection, the ordinary dismissal procedure shall commence from when the institutional head adopts the decision to initiate said procedure with the appointment of the directing body of the process.
- b)Upon receiving a complaint or report, or being informed of an alleged fault that, in their judgment, warrants the initiation of a dismissal procedure, the institutional head shall appoint a directing body of the process, which shall formulate the charges in writing and serve them on the public servant, for a term of fifteen days, to present all the evidence offered in an oral and private hearing, which shall be notified personally through the employee's institutional email, certified mail, or by means of a single publication in the official gazette La Gaceta, when it is shown that there is no way to locate the alleged offender.
Within the indicated period, the public servant must submit, in writing, their defense and may offer all the evidence they consider appropriate to support their defense, whether documentary, testimonial, or of any other kind in support thereof, as well as the exceptions or procedural incidents they deem appropriate.
- c)If the period determined in the preceding subsection expires and the servant has not presented opposition or has expressly stated their conformity with the charges attributed, the institutional head shall issue the dismissal resolution without further proceedings, unless they prove that they were not notified by the directing body of the process or that they were prevented by just cause from opposing.
- d)If the charge or charges against the employee or public servant imply criminal responsibility, or when it is necessary for the success of the administrative disciplinary dismissal procedure or to safeguard the decorum of the Public Administration, the institutional head may decree, in a reasoned resolution, the provisional suspension of the public servant from the exercise of their position. If criminal proceedings are initiated against the public servant, such suspension may be decreed at any time as a consequence of a detention order or pretrial detention, or a final judgment with a custodial sentence.
- e)If the interested party opposes within the legal term, the directing body of the process shall resolve the preliminary exceptions that have been presented and shall convene an oral and private hearing, before the Administration, in which all pertinent evidence and arguments of the parties shall be admitted and received. Likewise, on-site inspections and expert examinations may be conducted before the hearing.
A second hearing may be convened only when it was impossible in the first to have the file ready for its final decision and the pending proceedings so require.
- f)If the public servant incurs a new cause for dismissal during the investigation period, the charges shall be accumulated in the pending file and the procedure established in this chapter shall be followed.
- g)Once the evidence has been submitted, the preliminary exceptions presented within the ten-day period granted to oppose the service of charges have been resolved, and the conclusions have been presented by the parties or the period for doing so has expired, the file shall be deemed duly processed and the respective report shall be submitted to the institutional head for a final resolution to be issued.
- h)The institutional head shall resolve the dismissal of the public servant or declare the lack of merit and order the archiving of the file in the latter case. However, if considering that the fault exists but its gravity does not warrant dismissal, they shall order an oral reprimand, a written warning, or a suspension without pay for up to one month, depending on the gravity of the fault.
- i)Against the resolution ordering an oral reprimand, written warning, or suspension without pay for up to one month, the ordinary remedies of revocation with a subsidiary appeal, where the latter is admissible, may be filed within a period of five days, counted from the day following the notification of said resolution. Both remedies may be filed jointly or separately before the body issuing the resolution, which shall decide on the remedy of revocation.
In the case of public servants working in an institution covered by Law 1581, Civil Service Statute, of May 30, 1953, the appeal remedy shall be decided by the Civil Service Tribunal. The head of the entity shall forward, on appeal to the Civil Service Tribunal, the file of the corresponding administrative procedure containing the sanction resolution as well as the resolution of the remedy of revocation, with an account of the legal reasons and facts on which both resolutions are based.
- j)Cases not provided for in this procedure, insofar as they do not contradict the text and the procedural principles contained in this procedure, shall be resolved by applying, in supplementary manner, in the following order: Law 6227, General Public Administration Law, the norms of public law, the general principles of public law, the Labor Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the principles and laws of common law, equity, local customs and practices.
The Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), and public entities with governmental or organizational autonomy shall apply the dismissal process in accordance with their internal regulations, their own laws, or statutes, as applicable. If there is no institutional regulation in this regard, Law 6227, General Public Administration Law, of May 2, 1978, the norms of public law, the general principles of public law, the Labor Code, and the Civil Procedure Code shall apply in a supplementary manner.