Civil Service Commission Votes 6-1 That Bhumi Wetchayachai and Permanent Secretary Unlawfully Transferred Two Directors-General
The Civil Service Commission ruled 6-1 that the Interior Ministry unlawfully transferred two directors-general to inspector-general positions, finding the moves were rushed and lacked legitimate administrative justification despite legal au
On May 7, 2569, at the Civil Service Commission office, Commission Chairman Worawit Sukboon announced the findings of the Ethics and Integrity Commission investigation. According to media reports from July 2568, the Interior Minister proposed transferring two directors-general to inspector-general positions, citing administrative necessity. The two affected officials—Nareecha Kosasivailaichai, Director-General of the Department of Local Administration, and Chaiyavat Junthiraphong, Director-General of the Department of Internal Administration—filed complaints with the Ethics Commission on August 6 and 14, 2568.
The Commission voted 6-1, with members finding that the Permanent Secretary of Interior proposed the transfers just four days after the minister announced his policy directives on July 4, 2568. The Cabinet approved the transfers on July 8—less than a week later—leaving no reasonable timeframe for the two officials to implement the assigned policies before their reassignment. According to Ministry Order 2704/2568, dated September 3, 2568, the officials were appointed as inspector-generals, over one month after receiving the policy mandate.
Particularly problematic is the case of Chaiyavat, who would have less than one month remaining before mandatory retirement, making it impossible to effectively drive policy implementation regarding drug suppression issues. While the Interior Minister and Permanent Secretary possess legal authority to make such transfers, they must exercise that authority lawfully.
Chairman Worawit stated the transfers demonstrate hasty action concealing undisclosed purposes beyond genuine administrative necessity. Although the reassignments maintain equivalent salary and position allowances, the job responsibilities differ significantly between director-general and inspector-general roles. Inspector-general positions lack human resources management, asset management, and budgeting responsibilities—core functions of director-general posts. The reassignments essentially converted their roles to oversight and advisory positions rather than operational leadership positions.
