The Plaintiff was punished by dismissal for committing a criminal offense, resulting in a final judgment of imprisonment. After being released from prison, he submitted a letter requesting reinstatement to the police service. However, the Plaintiff was considered ineligible due to lacking qualifications and being subject to the prohibitions under Section 48 (6) of the Royal Thai Police Act, B.E. 2547 (2004) in accordance with Rule 2 paragraph one (4) of the Regulation of the Police Commission on Qualifications and Prohibited Characteristics for Being a Police Official, B.E. 2547 (2004). To return to the police service, the Plaintiff needed unanimous votes from the members of the Defendant No. 1 to exempt him from disqualifications according to Rule 2 paragraph two of the said Regulation. When the vote was not unanimous, the Defendant No. 2 could not reinstate the Plaintiff to the police service. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the legality of the Defendant No. 1’s resolution and affirmed the judgment of the Administrative Court of First Instance, which dismissed the case.
ศาลปกครอง
วิชาการ
สืบค้นข้อมูล
บริการประชาชน