-60March 22, 1996 administrative disciplinary proceedings were instituted against some
workers. Later on, the Municipality issued Mayoral Resolutions No. 625 of April 10,
1996 and No. 638 of April 12, 1996, whereby such workers were dismissed.74
204(35) Eleven dismissed workers filed appeals for legal protection [protection of
constitutional guarantees and rights], on the grounds that they had been dismissed
in violation of the due process provided for in the Reglamento de la Ley de Carrera
Administrativa y de Remuneraciones del Sector Público (Regulations Implementing
the Civil Service Career and Public Sector Compensation Law).75
204(36) In January and February 1996 the Staff Department of the Municipality of
Lima issued official letters regarding the alleged taking or disappearance of the
attendance control cards belonging to several workers. Under Mayoral Resolution No.
297 of March 13, 1996 administrative disciplinary proceedings were instituted
against the workers who were allegedly guilty of such misconduct. Later on, the
Municipality issued Mayoral Resolution No. 680 of April 25, 1996, whereby such
workers were dismissed. Four of them filed appeals for legal protection [protection of
constitutional guarantees and rights] alleging they had been dismissed in violation of
the due process.76
204(37) On November 18 and December 21, 1998 and on April 9, 1999 the Tribunal
Constitucional (Constitutional Court) rendered three judgments wherein it found the
above appeals for legal protection [protection of constitutional guarantees and
rights] (supra paras. 204(35) and 204(36)) to be admissible and the Mayoral
Resolutions which provided the plaintiffs’ dismissal to be non-applicable to fourteen
out of the fifteen plaintiffs and ordered the Municipality of Lima that they be
reinstated to the jobs they had or to similar ones “without back payment of lost
wages.” As to the grounds for such decisions, the Tribunal Constitucional
(Constitutional Court) stated that the Comisión Permanente de Procesos
Administrativos Disciplinarios (Comisión Permanente de Procesos Administrativos
Disciplinarios (Committee on Administrative Disciplinary Procedures)) had not
rendered a decision in the administrative proceedings instituted by the Municipality
of Lima against the plaintiffs as it should have pursuant to Articles 152 and 166 of
the Reglamento de la Ley de Carrera Administrativa y de Remuneraciones del Sector
Público (Regulations Implementing the Civil Service Career and Public Sector
Compensation Law), whereby the right to a due process had been violated.
Furthermore, in the above judgment of December 21, 1998 the Tribunal
Constitucional (Constitutional Court) added that the report of the Comisión
Permanente de Procesos Administrativos Disciplinarios (Comisión Permanente de
Procesos Administrativos Disciplinarios (Committee on Administrative Disciplinary
Procedures)) submitted in these proceedings had been issued after the date the
Mayoral Resolution which provided the plaintiff’s dismissal was issued and released,
74
Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolutions No. 308 of March 15, 1996, No. 372 of March 22, 1996, No. 625 of
April 10, 1996 and No. 638 of April 12, 1996 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix
39, folios 1901 to 1909).
75
Cf. Judgments rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on November 18
and December 21, 1998 and April 9, 1999 (case file to the appendixes to the application brief, appendixes
39, 40 and 41, folios 1912, 1944 and 1956).
76
Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolutions No. 297 of March 13, 1996, No. 308 of March 15, 1996 and No. 680
of April 25, 1996 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 39 and 40, folios 1903,
1907 and 1932).