EFFECTIVENESS AND LIMITATIONS OF DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS BY THE NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION IN PUNISHING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE THAI BUREAUCRACY

Abstract

This article aimed to analyze the effectiveness and limitations of disciplinary findings issued by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, particularly the gap between NACC resolutions and actual enforcement by government agencies. The study examined legal constraints, procedural delays, and the resulting impact on disciplinary mechanisms, and proposed legal and policy reforms to enhance the efficiency and credibility of disciplinary actions within the Thai public sector, conducted by the documentary research method, drawing from administrative law principles, the rule of law, legal opinions of the Council of State, rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court, official statistical reports, and recommendations from international organizations. The study was found that: 1. Although NACC resolutions carry ethical and legal weight, they are not legally binding on government agencies. Legal loopholes also limit the NACC’s authority to only three types of offenses: malfeasance in office, abuse of official position, and misconduct in the administration of justice. As a result, disciplinary findings outside this scope are non-binding, and agency heads must initiate a new internal disciplinary investigation under civil service law often leading to discretional inaction or leniency. 2. NACC investigations were frequently delayed, resulting in cases where the accused have already retired or left office, rendering disciplinary actions ineffective. 3. There is no formal system for monitoring or evaluating whether agencies have complied with NACC resolutions, leading to a lack of continuity and transparency in enforcement. The article recommended reforms such as making NACC resolutions legally binding, establishing enforcement follow-up mechanisms, imposing penalties for noncompliance, and limiting discretionary abuse by agency heads. These measures aimed to strengthen accountability and promote a culture of transparency in Thailand’s public administration.