“The Project of Lay Your Home in Cop’s Hand” established and approved by the Defendant is the measure with a purpose to prevent crimes and maintain public order which are the duties and powers of a police force under Law. According to this project, a red box signifying a police checkpoint and a check book had to be installed in front of each house participating in this project. Also, the police officers were assigned to patrol around the participating houses and sign their names in the check books. There was, however, no police officer performing such assigned duty suitably; the Plaintiff’s house was broken in and some property belongings were stolen. The acts of the Defendants were considered as a wrongful act arising from the neglect of official required by the law under Section 9 (3) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542. In this case, according to Section 5 Paragraph one of the Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Official B.E. 2539 the Plaintiff cannot file a case against the Defendant No.1 but shall directly sue to the Defendant No.2 which is a government agency liable to an aggrieved person for the result of a wrongful act by its officer in the performance of his or her duties
According to Clause 132 of Regulation of Ministry of Interior on Procurement of Local Administration B.E. 2535 (1992) and Clause 220 of the agricultural waterway contract dated 13th September 2001, a contractor shall deliver written notice to an employer in the event of force majeure or circumstance and request for extending period of performance for 15 days from the date of termination of force majeure event or circumstance. In this case, the notice of the contractor for extending period of performance was delivered to the Plaintiff beyond 15 days from the date of termination of force majeure event. And the Municipal Clerk and the supply officer of Chomthong Subdistrict Municipality also gave opinions that the contractor’s request of the validity period extension was against Clause 132 of the said Regulation of Ministry of Interior and Clause 22 of the contract. The Plaintiff’s approval of the contract extension was undue exercise of discretion and illegal. The Defendant’s resolution of the Plaintiff’s salary deduction was lawful.
The Plaintiff’s son drove his car so excessive high that he cannot slow down or stop his car in time when proceeding to the T-junction, causing himself and his car drowned in the pond opposite the T-junction and died. The act of Plaintiff’s son was not the conduct of the reasonable man. And, the accident was directly the result of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s son, only. Even though the Defendant was negligent to keep road and road signs in good repair against Section 67 paragraph one (1) of the Tambon Council and Tambon Administrative Organization Act, B.E. 2537 (1994), the negligence was not the factor of the death of the Plaintiff’s son. The Defendant was not liable to the death of the Plaintiff’s son and compensation to the Plaintiff.
Under the Regulation of Prince of Songkla University on PSU Fund for Southern Research and Development B.E. 2532 (1989) and the Regulation of Prince of Songkla University on University Income B.E. 2535 (1992), a disbursement official has duty to submit the disbursement memo and loan agreement of the payment for research participants, through Director of the Research and Development Bureau and Vice President for the Research and Graduate Studies, for the approval of the Defendant No.1. After the approval, cash shall be withdrawn from the fund account and paid to researchers by the official rapidly. When the Plaintiff deposited one of research participant’s remuneration in her own account and used the money for her own benefit, the act of the Plaintiff was malfeasance in office and serious breach of discipline in accordance with Section 39 paragraph three of Civil Service Act in Higher Education Institution B.E. 2547 (2004). The dismissal order of the Defendant No.1 and the order rejecting appeal of the Defendant No.2 were lawful.
According to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act, B.E. 2528 (1985), Building Control Act, B.E. 2522 (1979), and order of the Defendant dated 27th July 1999, the Director of Vadhana District acting on behalf of the Defendant shall have power to consider granting and revoking license of construction or modification of the building, and to prohibit any person from using or entering into any part of the building or the site not accurately done as licensed. The Director of Vadhana District, however, did not perform his duty by inspecting whether the construction of the Santika Club had been accurately done as licensed. The death of the Plaintiff’s son was the direct result of the negligence and wrongful act of the Director of Vadhana District pursuant to Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. As an State agency, the Defendant shall be liable to the Plaintiff for the result of wrongful act of its officials in the performance of their duty under Section 5 of Act on Liability for Wrongful Act of Official, B.E. 2539 (1996).
According to Section 301 paragraph one (3) of Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540 (1997) and Section 19 (3) of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2542 (1999) the National Anti – Corruption Commissioner (NACC) has powers and duties to inquire and decide whether a State official has become unusually wealthy or has committed an offence of corruption, malfeasance in office or malfeasance in judicial office. In this case, only the corruption offence was the disciplinary offence in the competence of the NACC. When the other three offences were not under the NACC competence, the resolution of the NACC did not bind the Defendant. The report, documents and opinion of the NACC was not the disciplinary inquiry file of the disciplinary inquiry committee according to Section 92 of the Organic Act on Counter Corruption, B.E. 2542 (1999). In addition, there was no rule of the Department of Lands stating that the Plaintiff had official duty to survey plots of land by his own. And there was no evidence that the Plaintiff conspired with someone in intentionally issuing or omitting to issue land title deeds for undue benefits of his own or the others against Section 82 paragraph three the Civil Service Act, B.E. 2535 (1992). The dismissal order of the Defendant by the resolution of the NACC was unlawful.
The Dean of faculty has fully power of administration and management in the faculty and power of nomination of Vice-Dean candidate to the Rector of Kasetsart University for approval in order to assist in faculty management. And, the Dean is entitled to exercise discretion to nominate any person as he thinks fit to be Vice-Dean and to discharge Vice-Dean from the position due to distrustfulness. If it is evident that there are other persons who are more appropriately qualified and beneficial to the interest of the faculty of Business Administration and Kasetsart University than the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.1 by advice of the Defendant No.2 is authorized to exercise discretion to appoint such person to be Vice-Dean pursuant to Sections 28, 29, 31 of Kasetsart University Act B.E. 2541 (1998). In addition, the Defendants’ order discharging the Plaintiffs from their position due to distrustfulness is not considered as punishment. Also, the cause of distrustfulness is not necessary to come from specific or general act and behavior of the Plaintiffs; it could be caused by various acts or circumstances as a whole. The order of the Defendants discharging the Plaintiffs from Vice-Deans was lawful and not under Sections 30 and 37 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996).
Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. A. 236/2557, dated 19th June B.E. 2557 (2014) Ms. A (Plaintiff) v Chief Executive of the Mabkha Subdistrict Administrative Organization (D1) and Subdistrict Officer Commission (D2)
Articles 2 and 4 of the Letter of the Office of the Civil Service Commission Re : Openness System to Salary Increase of Civil Servant dated 7th September B.E. 2540 (1997) states that prior to issuing salary increase order, the superior shall inform the performance evaluation to the evaluated official individually, and give the evaluated official the opportunity to clarify fact and ask for advice relating to the performance evaluation. In this case, the Defendant did not inform the performance evaluation to the Plaintiff and not give the Plaintiff the opportunity to clarify fact and ask for advice relating to the performance evaluation before issuing the order not raising salary to the Plaintiff. In the appeal process, however, the Merit Assessment Board gave the Plaintiff the opportunity to hearing. The order was then valid according to Section 41 paragraph one (3) of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996).
In assigning a police officer to perform duty in three southern border provinces, an appointing authority shall consider the qualification of the appointee with exceptional caution and impartiality. The Defendant No.1 appointed the Plaintiff to take a position of Deputy Superintendent, Investigation Division, Pattani Provincial Police despite of the fact that he had not had work experience in the area, had no outstanding performance, and had faced severe health problem. Moreover, a selection process was done with unreasonably fast and likely to be prejudicial to the Plaintiff due to being the witness in the criminal prosecution against his superior. The appointment order was undue exercise of discretion and wrongful act.