Order of Wuhan Municipal People’s Government
No. 257
It is hereby promulgated that the Measures of Wuhan Municipality for the Investigation of Administrative Fault Liability have been adopted at the 110thExecutive Meeting of Wuhan Municipal People’s Government on October 27, 2014, and shall be implemented as of December 1, 2014.
Mayor: Tang Liangzhi
November 5, 2014
Measures of Wuhan Municipality for the Investigation of Administrative Fault Liability
Chapter One General Provisions
Article 1 With a view to promoting the administrative enforcement according to law, raising the administrative efficacy, guaranteeing a correct, timely, impartial and efficient performance of the administrative responsibilities of the administrative organs and their functionaries, and preventing and correcting administrative faults, these Measures are formulated in accordance with laws and regulations, such as theAdministrative Supervision Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Servant Law of the People's Republic of China, the Regulations on the Disciplinary Sanctions for Civil Servants of Administrative Organs,the Work Regulations of Wuhan Municipality for Law Enforcement Liability System,as well as other laws and regulations, and in the light of the actual situation of this Municipality.
Article 2 These Measures are applicable to the organizations with administrative function in public affairs which are authorized by the administrative organs at the municipal or district levels or by laws and regulations and the organizations which are entrusted with the administrative responsibility in public affairs by the administrative organs at the municipal or district levels (hereinafter referred to as the administrative organs), as well as their functionaries.
Article 3 For the administrative organs and their functionaries who have committed administrative faults, their administrative fault liability shall be investigated.
The administrative faults refer to the acts that the administrative organs and their functionaries fail to perform or to correctly perform their specified responsibilities, which have caused disturbance of the administrative order or administrative efficiency, delay in the progress of administrative work, damage to the national interests, the public interests or the legitimate interests of administrative counterparts, losses, and/or adverse effects.
The failures to perform responsibilities as described in the preceding paragraph include refusing to perform, waiving, or evading responsibilities, and other circumstances; the failures to correctly perform responsibilities include the failures to perform responsibilities on a legal basis or in accordance with the specified procedures, authorities and time limits, and other circumstances.
Article 4 The administrative organs at all levels of this Municipality shall, in line with their respective responsibilities and administration authorities, be responsible for investigating the administrative fault liability of the persons liable for the administrative faults. The administrative supervisory organs at the municipal and district levels shall be responsible for supervising and inspecting the work related to the investigation of administrative fault liability, and for investigating and dealing with the administrative fault cases that have great influences under their respective jurisdictions according to law.
Article 5 The investigation of administrative fault liability shall be based on the facts, without missing any fault; a liability shall be matched to a fault, punishment shall be supported by education, and both the investigation of liability and the improvement of work shall be emphasized.
Article 6 The administrative organs at all levels of this Municipality must establish an investigation system for administrative fault liability, and incorporate it into the liability system for administrative law enforcement, as an important content of work responsibility objective and job appraisal.
Chapter Two Investigation Scope of Administrative Fault Liability
Article 7 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative licensing shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) failing to publicize materials that should have been publicized at work places as provided;
(2) refusing to accept an application for administrative licensing that conforms to legal conditions;
(3) failing to perform the legal duty of disclosure to an applicant or interested party during the process of accepting, reviewing or approving administrative licensing;
(4) failing to inform an applicant at one time of all the contents that must be supplemented and corrected if the application materials submitted by such applicant are not complete or do not conform to the legal form;
(5) failing to give reasons for not accepting an application for administrative licensing or not approving administrative licensing;
(6) failing to hold a hearing as required according to law;
(7) approving administrative licensing to an applicant who fails to meet the legal conditions, or making a decision on administrative licensing beyond its legitimate authority;
(8) refusing to approve administrative licensing to an applicant that meet the legal conditions, or failing to make a decision on administrative licensing within a statutory time limit, or failing to deliver a decision on administrative licensing in the prescribed time limit;
(9) making a decision on administrative licensing by skipping over the legal procedures like bidding, auction or examination, or failing to make a decision on administrative licensing based on the bidding or auction, or examination result as provided by law;
(10) illegally entrusting intermediaries, subsidiary public institutions or other organizations to exercise the licensing administration on behalf of itself;
(11) with regard to an administrative licensing involving different departments, evading its responsibilities or delaying the procedures without active and timely coordination, or after finishing the licensing items under its jurisdiction, failing to transfer or transfer within the time limit the case to other departments;
(12) extorting or accepting others’ properties or seeking for other profits;
(13) charging fees without authorization or in violation of the statutory items and rates;
(14) holding back, embezzling, partitioning without permission or partitioning without permission in disguised forms fees charged for performance of administrative licensing;
(15) setting administrative licensing without authorization or continuing to approve the administrative licensing items that have been cancelled or delegated to lower levels;
(16) failing to incorporate an administrative licensing item into the system of the government affairs service center as provided;
(17) failing to exercise unified acceptance, joint handling and centralized handling of administrative licensing as provided; or
(18) other acts in violation of the provisions on administrative licensing, that an offender fails to perform its statutory responsibilities for administrative licensing, or delays its administrative licensing work, or infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of an administrative licensing applicant or other interested parties.
Article 8 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative punishment shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) giving administrative punishment in lack of the qualification as an administrative lawenforcer;
(2) illegally entrusting the power of administrative punishment;
(3) administrative law enforcers failing to produce their law enforcement permits on the scene;
(4) giving administrative punishment without legal or factual basis;
(5) setting administrative punishment or changing the variety or range of administrative punishments without authorization;
(6) in violation of the legal procedures for administrative punishment, failing to guarantee according to law the administrative counterparts’ legitimate rights of and interests in statement, defense, hearing and relief;
(7) failing to use penalty or confiscation receipts, or using the penalty or confiscation receipts printed by non-statutory departments;
(8) in violation of the provisions of administrative punishment law, collecting fines without authorization;
(9) withholding, partitioning secretly or partitioning secretly in disguised forms the fines or the confiscated illegal proceeds or properties;
(10) law enforcers taking the advantage of their power, extorting or accepting others’ properties, or appropriating the fines for themselves, but the circumstance is minor as not to constitute a crime;
(11) using or damaging the detained properties, causing losses to the parties concerned;
(12) failing to transfer a case that should have been transferred to a judicial organ for the investigation for criminal liability, but substituting administrative punishment for criminal punishment;
(13) neglecting responsibilities in failures of stopping and punishing the illegal acts that should have been stopped and punished according to law, causing damages to the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal entities or other organizations, the public interests or the public orders; or
(14) other acts of illegal administrative punishment.
Article 9 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative compulsion shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) taking compulsory measures without a legal basis;
(2) taking administrative compulsory measures in violation of the legal procedures;
(3) taking compulsory measures beyond statutory authority;
(4) failing to report to the functionary-in-charge of the administrative organ before implementing administrative compulsory measures, or making a decision on administrative compulsion without approval, or the approved administrative compulsory measures not conforming to legal conditions;
(5) failing to assign two or more administrative law enforcers as provided to implement administrative compulsory measures;
(6) administrative law enforcers failing to produce their law enforcement permits on the scene;
(7) failing to notify a party concerned to be present before implementing administrative compulsory measures, or failing to inform a party concerned of the reasons or evidences for implementing administrative compulsory measures as well as the rights and relief approaches enjoyed by a party concerned according to law;
(8) failing to fully hear the opinions of a party concerned or review the facts, reasons or evidences put forward by a party concerned, or failing to accept the facts, reasons or evidences put forward by a party concerned that are tenable;
(9) failing to make a spot note, or to havethe signatures of the parties concerned and the administrative law enforcers or the official seal on a spot note, or failing to note the refusal of a party concerned in a record, or if a party concerned is not present, failing to invite a witness to be present and to have the signatures of the witness and the administrative law enforcers and the official seal on a spot note;
(10) for implementing an administrative compulsory measure that impose restrictions on citizens’ personal freedom, failing to inform on the spot or to inform immediately after implementing an administrative compulsory measure the family members of the parties concerned of the administrative organ, location and time limit for implementing the administrative compulsory measure.
(11) failing to confiscate or destroy goods according to law that shall be confiscated according to law or that shall be destroyed as specified in laws or administrative regulations;
(12) failing to terminate an administrative compulsory measure that meets the conditions for termination;
(13) failing to transfer immediately according to law a case which has constituted a crime to a judicial organ;
(14) after finishing the enforcement of an administrative compulsory measure, failing to notify the party concerned in writing and close the case;
(15) in emergency where an administrative compulsory measure requires enforcement on the spot, an administrative law enforcer failing to report to the functionary-in-charge of the administrative organ within 24 hours and to go through the approval formalities, or failing to terminate immediately an administrative compulsory measure which is considered inappropriate by the functionary-in-charge of the administrative organ;
(16) failing to urge a party concerned in writing to perform his/her obligations before making a decision on an administrative compulsory measure;
(17) If a party concerned, after being urged, still fails to comply with an administrative decision within the prescribed time limit, failing to make a written decision on compulsory enforcement without a proper reason;
(18) failing to deliver an exigent notice or a decision on administrative compulsory enforcement to a party concerned;
(19) failing to enforce an administrative compulsory measure according to law; or
(20) other acts violating the provisions on administrative compulsion and damaging the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts.
Article 10 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative collection or administrative requisition shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) implementing administrative collection or administrative requisition without legal basis;
(2) setting collection items without approval of legal procedures;
(3) failing to implement administrative collection or administrative requisition in accordance with the legal scope or time limit;
(4) withholding, partitioning secretly or expend without permission the administrative collected payments;
(5) failing to publicize a requisition plan and solicit opinions from the public before implementing administrative requisition;
(6) failing to produce valid permits when implementing administrative collection or administrative requisition;
(7) failing to issue legal receipts after administrative collection;
(8) failing to return the requisitioned goods to a requisitioned party after completion of administrative requisition;
(9) failing to make a decision on compensation in accordance with the compensation assessment and compensate a requisitioned party after completion of administrative requisition; or
(10) other acts violating the provisions on administrative collection and administrative requisition.
Article 11 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative payment shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) implementing administrative payment without legal basis or beyond its power;
(2) failing to implement administrative payment in accordance with the statutory authority or procedures;
(3) failing to accept an application for administrative payment which meets the required conditions and should have been accepted;
(4) failing to make administrative payment to an applicant that meets the required conditions or to make a decision on payment approval within a legal time limit; or
(5) other acts violating the provisions on administrative payment.
The administrative payment as mentioned in the preceding paragraph means the behaviors that the administrative organs provide pensions, and pay the basic cost of living allowances and social insurance premiums according to law.
Article 12 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative adjudication shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) implementing administrative adjudication without legal basis or beyond its power;
(2) failing to implement administrative adjudication in accordance with the statutory authority or procedures;
(3) failing to accept an application for administrative adjudication which meets the required conditions and should have been accepted;
(4) failing to make administrative adjudication within a legal time limit; or
(5) other acts violating the provisions on administrative adjudication.
Article 13 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative confirmation shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) If an application meets the acceptance conditions, failing to issue and inform the applicant to receive a notice of acceptance;
(2) failing to inform on the spot or within the legal time limit (committed time limit) an applicant at one time of all the contents that must be supplemented and corrected within a reasonable time limit if the application materials submitted by such applicant are not complete or do not conform to the legal form;
(3) If an application fails to meet the acceptance conditions, failing to inform an applicant in writing of the reasons and basis for not accepting such application;
(4) failing to finish the examination and approval and grant a confirmation document within the legal time limit (committed time limit);
(5) failing to exercise examination and approval in strict accordance with the provisions of the external flow chart (guidance) that has been publicized, or adding the acceptance conditions, procedures and application documents, or raising the examination and approval standard, or expanding the scope of examination and approval without authorization; or
(6) other acts violating the provisions on administrative confirmation.
Article 14 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its allocation of special fund shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) defrauding special fiscal fund by misrepresentation or false claim;
(2) withholding or embezzling special fiscal fund;
(3) detaining a special fiscal fund that should have been allocated;
(4) extending the expenditure scope and raising the expenditure level in violation of the provisions;
(5) for a special fund project of transfer payment by the superior, if the superior has determined the final result of fund allocation, failing to distribute or appropriate the fund within the legal time limit (committed time limit);
(6) for a special fund project of transfer payment to be decomposed as required by the superior, failing to propose a decomposition plan based on the verification of relevant information, and to distribute or appropriate the fund within the legal time limit (committed time limit);
(7) failing to publicize the supporting direction and emphasis of special fund, as well as the conditions, procedures, time limit and other items of project application;
(8) for a special fund project applied for by an enterprise or public institution and allocated by the competent department in accordance with the fund management measures, failing to inform at one time the applicant of all the application documents to be submitted and handling procedures;
(9) failing to exercise examination and approval over an application document and to make a decision on whether to accept it within a legal time limit (committed time limit);
(10) failing to exercise examination and approval timely according to law, or if it conforms with the provisions, failing to appropriate a special fund in accordance with the time requirement on fund use, or if it fails to conform with the provisions, failing to inform an applicant in writing of the reasons;
(11) failing to accept and issue an acceptance report promptly after completion of a special fund project;
(12) failing to verify and appropriate a special fund in accordance with the budget or the fund use plan;
(13) changing the contents of a special fund project or adjusting the budget without approval; or
(14) other acts of using or defrauding special fiscal funds in violation of provisions.
Article 15 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative supervision and inspection shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) implementing administrative supervision and inspection without legal basis;
(2 failing to produce valid permits when implementing administrative supervision and inspection;
(3) failing to implement administrative supervision and inspection in accordance with the legal procedures and time limit;
(4) implementing administrative supervision and inspection without legal basis or beyond its power;;
(5) waiving, evading, delaying or refusing administrative supervision and inspection;
(6) concealing, covering up, being partial to, or indulging, without stopping or correcting, the illegal acts discovered during administrative supervision and inspection;
(7) damaging the legitimate rights and interests of the inspected; or
(8) other acts violating the provisions on administrative supervision and inspection.
Article 16 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its administrative reconsideration shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) failing to accept an application for reconsideration that meets the required conditions and should have been accepted;
(2) failing to transfer an application for administrative reconsideration as provided;
(3) failing to make a reconsideration decision within a legal time limit;
(4) a respondent failing to take a specific administrative act in accordance with the requirement of a reconsideration decision within the prescribed time limit, or taking a specific administrative act in violation of the provisions;
(5) refusing or obstructing administrative reconsideration functionaries in obtaining evidences through investigation or consulting, copying, or gathering relevant documents and information;
(6) an administrative reconsideration organ or agency failing to perform its responsibilities for administrative reconsideration as prescribed in the administrative reconsideration law and the regulations on its implementation, and still failing to make corrections after being urged by an administrative organ holding the right of supervision;
(7) committing illegalities for personal gains or having other misconducts in administrative reconsideration activities; or
(8) other acts violating the provisions on administrative reconsideration.
Article 17 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of government information publicity shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) failing to perform its obligation of government information publicity;
(2) failing to update the government information, the guidance of government information publicity, and the directory of government information publicity that should be publicized;
(3) collecting fees in violation of the provisions;
(4) providing government information at a cost to other organizations or individuals;
(5) disclosing the government information which should be kept secret;
(6) disclosing government information in violation of the provided procedures and beyond its power; or
(7) other acts violating the provisions on government information publicity.
Article 18 An administrative organ which commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative responsibilities, resulting in an infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned, shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) Illegally raising funds, apportioning charges, or illegally requiring citizens, legal entities or other organizations to perform other obligations;
(2) refusing to perform according to law its legal responsibilities for protecting the personal rights and property rights of citizens, legal entities or other organizations under their applications;
(3) infringing upon the legitimate operational autonomy of citizens, legal entities or other organizations; or
(4) other illegal enforcement acts damaging the personal rights or property rights of citizens, legal entities or organizations.
Article 19 Any functionary in an administrative organ who commits any of the following acts during its performance of administrative responsibilities shall be investigated for the administrative fault liability:
(1) leaving vacant in working hours the service windows which directly serve the public;
(2) failing to wear their badges and uniforms as provided during their work;
(3) ignoring or not replying to the service objects, and evading or delaying the matters within the scope of their responsibilities;
(4) failing to receive, register or check the letters or calls or to propose a comment on handling procedures as provided, or to submit within the prescribed time limit to the leaders for approval without a justified reason;
(5) failing to give explanation to, transfer, or submit to the leaders for approval, or ignoring the matters that are beyond its power or inappropriate for its handling;
(6) with regard to the matters involving the power of other departments when dealing with official documents, failing to consult with the relevant departments, or if of not reaching a consensus after consultation, making decisions without reporting to the superior leaders or authorities for ruling;
(7) failing to strictly implementing the provisions on confidentiality and file management, resulting in the disclosure, damage or loss of documents, archives or information,;
(8) failing to strictly verify the type, format, text and legality of the printed and issued official documents, causing serious consequences;
(9) issuing official documents without examination and approval of the leaders;
(10) failing to issue official documents within the prescribed time limits;
(11) failing to use official seals as provided;
(12) with regard to a matter which shall be handled according to the laws and regulations or in line with its responsibilities, failing to settle it within the prescribed time limit and without justified reasons;
(13) delaying its work in a dilatory, inefficient or perfunctory manner or by weak enforcement, causing losses or adverse effects;
(14) complained by service objects due to poor service quality or attitude, which is verified to be true through investigation;
(15) incompetent for the job as evaluated or appraised;
(16) intentionally or negligently disclosing the work secrets, or the trade secrets and personal privacy possessed during the performance of responsibilities;
(17) refusing to complete the tasks assigned by the superior leaders, or failing to complete the tasks assigned by the superior leaders without justified reasons;
(18) failing to support, coordinate or assist in the matters of which the application for support, cooperation or assistance is feasible with justified reasons and basis;
(19) exercising a power beyond the prescribed responsibilities of a position, without authorization by laws and regulations, or entrustment by an administrative organ according to law;
(20) violating statutory procedures in administrative enforcement;
(21) abusing the right of discretion, causing a damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned, or allowing the parties concerned to avoid their responsibilities, causing a damage to the interests of the State, collective or others;
(22) by taking advantage of a position or work, putting forward illegitimate demands for seeking personal gains to the parties concerned or the interested parties; or
(23) other acts violating the internal administrative systems or delaying internal administrative work.
Chapter Three Division and Bearing of Administrative Fault Liability
Article 20 Administrative fault liability is divided into direct liability and supervisory liability.
Article 21 A service functionary who directly conducts a specific administrative act without approval of the verifier and approver, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, bears the direct liability.
A service functionary whose fraud, favoritism or irregularities causes a failure of the verifier and approver in appropriately performing their review and approval responsibilities, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, bears the direct liability.
A service functionary who fails to conduct a specific administrative act according to the examination and approval results made by the verifier and approver, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, bears the direct liability.
Article 22 If a verifier or approver fails to find out or correct after finding out a discoverable error in the plan or comment drafted by a service functionary, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the service functionary bears the direct liability, and the verifier or approver bears the supervisory liability.
Article 23 If a verifier does not accept or changes a service functionary’s correct viewpoints, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence after approval by an approver, the verifier bears the direct liability, and the approver bears the supervisory liability.
If a verifier makes a decision directly without report to an approver for approval, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the verifier bears the direct liability.
Article 24 If an approver does not accept or changes the correct comments of a service functionary or verifier, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the approver bears the direct liability.
If an approver makes a decision directly without preliminary acceptance by a service functionary and examination by a verifier, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the approver bears the direct liability.
Article 25 A leader who instructs and interferes with a specific administrative act, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, bears the direct liability.
Article 26 If a superior organ changes a specific administrative act by an inferior organ, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the service functionary of the superior organ bears the direct liability, and the functionary-in-charge of the superior organ bears the supervisory liability.
Article 27 If a joint law enforcement involving several administrative organs causes administrative fault consequence, the leading administrative organ bears the main liability, and the fault liability of the service functionary of the specific administrative act and the fault liability of the functionary-in-charge of joint law enforcement of the leading administrative organ are determined according to the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 28 If, after a hearing, an approver makes a decision by adopting a wrong suggestion of the hearing presider, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the hearing presider bears the direct liability and the approver bears the supervisory liability. Or if, after a hearing, an approver refuses to adopt a correct suggestion of the hearing presider, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the approver bears the direct liability.
Article 29 If a reconsideration organ changes its original specific administrative act, which leads to the arising of an administrative fault consequence, the service functionary of the reconsideration organ bears the direct liability, and the functionary-in-charge of the reconsideration organ bears the supervisory liability.
Article 30 If an administrative fault consequence is caused by intentional misconduct or negligence of two or more persons, the liability is determined in line with the personal role.
Chapter Four Investigation of Administrative Fault Liability
Article 31 The investigation of the administrative fault liability of an administrative organ includes the following ways:
(1) written warning;
(2) ordering to make a written examination;
(3) circulating a notice of criticism;
(4) ordering to apologize publicly; or
(5) other ways as provided by laws, regulations and rules.
In the process of investigation of the fault of an administrative organ, the administrative fault liability of the chief executives and other functionaries-in-charge shall be investigated concurrently according to the provisions of Article 32 of these Measures.
Article 32 The investigation of the fault liability of a functionary of an administrative organ includes the following ways:
(1) ordering to make a written examination;
(2) circulating a notice of criticism;
(3) cancelling the qualification for appraisal of the current year;
(4) withholding bonuses;
(5) persuasion and admonition;
(6) suspending law enforcement work;
(7) transfer from law enforcement post or suspension from office for off-post training;
(8) dismissal; or
(9) warning, recording a demerit or serious demerit, demotion, removal from original post, expulsion, or other administrative punishments.
Article 33 According to the seriousness of circumstances, the consequences of damage and the extent of impact, administrative fault is divided into general fault, serious fault and particularly serious fault:
(1) a general fault is a fault under a minor circumstance, which causes a minor consequence of damage and a minor impact to an administrative counterpart or the administrative order;
(2) a serious fault is a fault under a serious circumstance, which causes a serious consequence of damage and a serious impact to an administrative counterpart or the administrative order; and
(3) a particularly serious fault is a fault under a particularly serious circumstance, which causes a particularly serious consequence of damage and a particularly serious impact to an administrative counterpart or the administrative order.
Article 34 With regard to a general fault, the functionary who bears direct liability is separately or jointly given the administrative processing set out in the Items (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 32 of these Measures; and the functionary who bears supervisory liability is separately or jointly given the administrative punishments set out in the Items (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 32 of these Measures.
Article35 With regard to a serious fault, the functionary who bears direct liability is given the administrative punishment like giving a warning, recording a demerit or serious demerit, or demotion, and is separately or jointly given the administrative processing set out in the Items (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Article 32 of these Measures; and the functionary who bears supervisory liability is given the administrative punishment like giving a warning, or recording a demerit or serious demerit, and is separately or jointly given the administrative processing set out in the Items (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Article 32 of these Measures.
Article 36 With regard to a particularly serious fault, the functionary who bears direct liability is given the punishment like dismissal, removal from original post, or expulsion, and in the event of removal from original post, may be separately or jointly given the administrative processing set out in the Items (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Article 32 of these Measures; and the functionary who bears supervisory liability is given the punishment like demotion, removal from original post, or expulsion, and in the event of expulsion, is jointly given the administrative processing set out in the Items (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Article 32 of these Measures.
Article 37 In any of the following circumstances, a functionary who bears the administrative fault liability shall be given a serious punishment:
(1) committing administrative faults twice or more times a year which shall be investigated;
(2) interfering with, hindering, or failing to cooperate with the liability investigation of his/her administrative fault;
(3) retaliating the petitioner, complainant, informant or the service functionary in charge of liability investigation; or
(4) during the process of duty performance, committing illegalities for personal gains or accepting the properties or dinner invitations from the parties concerned, participating in the travels or entertainment activities provided by the parties concerned, or accepting other improper services.
Article 38 If a functionary who bears the administrative fault liability proactively identifies and corrects his/her fault, without causing heavy losses or adverse effects, his/her administrative fault liability may be lessened, mitigated or exempted.
Article39 In any of the following circumstances, a functionary of an administrative organ shall be exempted from investigation of his/her administrative fault:
(1) understanding deviations arise from inexplicit provisions of the applicable laws, regulations, and rules;
(2) new evidences are discovered after a case is closed, which causes a change of the original facts and the nature of the case, except for deliberate concealment or negligent missing of the evidences;
(3) a functionary of an administrative organ cannot make a correct judgment due to a fraud by an administrative counterpart;
(4) an administrative fault arises from force majeure;
(5) though the desired results of reform and innovation are not achieved, the formulation and implementation of a reform and innovation plan conform with the provisions, and the duty of due diligence is fulfilled without unlawful personal gains or malicious collusion harmful to the public interests; or
(6) other circumstances as provided by laws, regulations and rules.
Article40 If his/her administrative fault causes State compensation liability, in addition to the investigation of fault liability as provided by these Measures, a part or all of the compensation costs shall be also claimed from the functionary who bears the liability according to theLaw of the People's Republic of China on State Compensation.
Chapter Five Investigation Authority and Procedures of Administrative Fault Liability
Article41 The municipal supervisory organ is responsible for the investigation of administrative fault liability and the unified organization and implementation of the whole city. The district supervisory organs are responsible for the investigation of administrative fault liability within their respective districts.
Other administrative organs are responsible for the investigation of administrative fault liability in line with their administrative authorities.
Article42 The supervisory organs mainly perform the following responsibilities in their organization and implementation of the investigation of administrative fault liability:
(1) guiding and supervising the government departments at the same levels in their investigation of administrative fault liability;
(2) investigating and dealing with the accepted accusations, prosecutions and complaints against administrative faults;
(3) making statistical analysis of the processing status of administrative faults in their respective districts; and
(4) studying the major problems arising during the investigation of administrative fault liability, and proposing suggestions to the people's governments at the same levels.
Article 43 The administrative fault liability shall be investigated according to the relevant provisions onthe authority ofpersonnel management and the authority of examination and approval of administrative sanctions. The inspection agencies of administrative fault liability under the administrative organs at all levels are mainly responsible for:
(1) deciding whether to investigate;
(2) reviewing the investigation or trial reports; and
(3) making decisions.
The inspection agencies of administrative fault liability under the administrative organs at all levels shall designate a specific office to be in charge of the routine work and accept the complaints, accusations and prosecutions from citizens, legal entities or other organizations.
Article44 With regard to the complaints, accusations and prosecutions from citizens, legal entities or other organizations, the inspection agencies of administrative fault liability of administrative organs shall, within seven days, review whether a factual basis exists and decide whether to accept. If a factual basis exists as reviewed, the inspection agencies shall accept them and inform the parties concerned in writing. In the absence of a factual basis, the inspection agencies shall refuse to accept them, and inform the parties concerned in writing of the reasons for refusal if real names are used by the complainants, prosecutors and accusers.
Article 45 A complainant, prosecutor or accuser who is unsatisfied with a refusal decision or finds it inconvenient to lodge a complaint, accusation or prosecution to an administrative organ performing administrative acts may lodge to a supervisory organ at the same level.
Article46 In any of the following circumstances, a functionary who performs the administrative act shall be investigated to determine whether he/she shall bear the administrative fault liability:
(1) the promulgated normative documents or the formulated administrative measures are revoked by a superior or competent organ due to the existence of illegalities;
(2) after administrative proceeding, a people's court reaches a verdict of revocation or partial revocation, performing a new specific administrative act or changing a specific administrative act, or ordering a performance;
(3) after administrative reconsideration, a reconsideration organ issues a decision of revocation or partial revocation, changing a specific administrative act, confirming a specific administrative act illegal, or ordering a performance;
(4) in the process of supervision and inspection of administrative law enforcement exercised by a people's congress or government at the same or higher level, or by a superior government department, an administrative act is ascertained to be wrong and is subject to investigation and handling;
(5) a decision has been made to accept a complaint, accusation or prosecution from a citizen, legal entity or another organization; or
(6) a superior organ requires an investigation.
Article47 A case which is subject to investigation as decided shall be investigated and closed within 15 working days as of the date of decision. Where the conditions are complicated, an extension of another 15 working days may be approved for processing as approved. However, if the laws, regulations and rules provide otherwise, such provisions shall prevail.
Article48 If a case accepted directly by a supervisory organ involves administrative punishment, theAdministrative Supervision Law of the People’s Republic of Chinaand the relevant provisions shall apply.
A complainant, prosecutor or accuser shall be informed in writing of a handling decision against a functionary who bears the administrative fault liability, if such complainant, prosecutor or accuser uses a real name.
Article49 A functionary who bears the administrative fault liability has the right of statement and defense.
Article50 If a functionary who bears the administrative fault liability is unsatisfied with a handling decision, he/she may, within 30 days as of the date of receipt of the decision, apply for review to the organ that has made the decision or lodge an appeal to the supervisory organ at the same level, or may file an application for arbitration to the personnel arbitration organ at the same level according to law. A review or re-examination decision or an arbitration decision shall be made within the statutory time limit.
Article51 An avoidance system is practiced in the investigation and handling of administrative fault acts. The functionaries of the investigation agencies of administrative fault liability and their subsidiaries who have an interest relationship with the administrative fault acts shall be subject to avoidance if the impartial handling may be affected.
Article52 The handling decisions against the functionaries who bear the administrative fault liability shall, in line with the authority of personnel management, be submitted to the supervisory organs, the personnel departments and the legal departments at the same level for archiving.
Chapter Six Supplementary Provisions
Article53 As used in these Measures, an approver refers to a functionary-in-charge of an administrative organ; a verifier refers to a functionary-in-charge of an internal department under an administrative organ; a service functionary refers to a functionary responsible for a specific administrative matter. However, if other functionaries are designated to exercise the authority of examination or approval according to the provisions on internal administrative control or under administrative authorization, the functionaries who actually exercise the authority of examination or approval are the verifiers or approvers.
Article54 As used in these Measures, a functionary who bears the direct liability refers to a functionary who, with the scope of his/her responsibilities, fails to perform or performs illegally or improperly his/her statutory responsibilities, and plays a decisive role in causing an administrative fault; a functionary who bears the supervisory liability refers to a functionary who, with the scope of his/her responsibilities, fails to be responsible for the work under his/her direct supervision, fails to perform or performs illegally or improperly his/her statutory responsibilities, and bears the leadership liability for an administrative fault that has been caused.
Article55 The administrative organs at all levels of this Municipality shall formulate their own specific measures for the implementation of the investigation of administrative fault liability according to the provisions of these measures, and in the light of the actual situation of their organs. The units which have worked out a system for the investigation of administrative fault liability shall revise according to these Measures. In the absence of detailed provisions under these Measures, an administrative organ may make supplements and improvement according to the actual need.
Article 56 These Measures shall come into force as of December 1, 2014. The Trial Measures of Wuhan Municipality for the Investigation of Administrative Fault Liability of the Functionaries of Administrative Organs (Order No. 151 of the Municipal People’s Government) shall be repealed simultaneously.
