Modern Means of Evidence before Administrative Investigation Committees under Jordanian Legislation: A Comparative Study

Abstract

This study sought to identify the foremost modern methods of evidence employed before the Administrative Investigation Committee for detecting disciplinary misconduct. In conformity with Article 146/B/2 of Civil Service Bylaw No. 9 of 2020, the legislative framework in Jordan has primarily centered on establishing conventional rules governing the presentation of evidence. It is a well-established tenet that the burden of proof rests with the administration, necessitating a comprehensive demonstration of the evidential basis underpinning their misconduct allegations. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the administration to provide indisputable evidence in cases where employees are accused of disciplinary infractions. Simultaneously, employees have to present evidence that contradicts these allegations. Investigative committees are tasked with examining the necessary evidence to establish the accuracy of these claims. The study found a significant gap in the legislative framework pertaining to modern methods of evidence within the Jordanian civil service Bylaw. While these methods are acknowledged in general legal provisions, this recognition is considered insufficient due to variations among different employment systems. Therefore, this study recommends explicitly incorporating modern evidence presentation methods into legislation to align with ongoing scientific and technological progress and facilitate their widespread adoption. Consequently, there is a need to revise legislative regulations governing employment systems and include the methods at the core of this investigation. This study addresses the ambiguity in Jordan's legal framework related to validating allegations against public employees before administrative investigators using an analytical and comparative approach, juxtaposing the legal provisions of Jordan and Egypt in this context.