The Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed a majority vote declaring that the transfers of former senior Ministry of Interior officials Chaiwat and Narucha during Phumtham's tenure as Minister of Interior were unlawful, since they occurred only four days after policy directives were issued, with a hasty reassignment to inspector positions.
On 7 May 2026, Worawit Sukbun, Chairperson of the Commission for the Protection of Moral Systems (CSC), announced the commission's decision following media reports in July 2025. The reports concerned the Minister of Interior proposing to the Cabinet the transfer of two directors-general to inspector positions within the Ministry of Interior, citing administrative necessity. The two officials filed complaints to the CSC on 6 and 14 August 2025, respectively. The CSC accepted the complaints for review and has now issued a ruling on the matter.
The majority of six CSC members (Worawit Sukbun, Phanu Sangkawar, Suraphan Buranon, Atichok Phondee, Thammanoon Ruangdit, and Chamnan Thipyachanwong) found that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Interior proposed the names of complainants Narucha Khosasivilai and Chaiwat Juntirapong to the Minister of Interior, Phumtham Wechayachai, shortly after he delivered policy directives to ministry executives and officials. At that time, the complainants held the positions of Director-General of the Department of Local Administration Promotion and Director-General of the Department of Provincial Administration, respectively. They were senior executives responsible for implementing the minister's policies, adapting them to their departments' missions, and concretely communicating these policies to subordinate officials.
Such implementation requires sufficient time to demonstrate effectiveness and benefits to the agencies and public. However, Phumtham was appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior on 3 July 2025, delivered policy directives on 4 July, and by 7 July, the Permanent Secretary proposed removing the two complainants from their director-general posts. The minister presented this to the Cabinet on 8 July 2025, which approved it only four days after the policy delivery, leaving no time for the complainants to implement the new policies within their departments. Notably, the ministry only assigned the two complainants regional inspection duties by order 2704/2568 dated 3 September 2025—over a month after their transfer orders. Chaiwat had less than a month remaining before retirement, making it impossible to advance policies such as drug problem solutions effectively. Even though the minister and permanent secretary have legal powers, such powers must be exercised lawfully.
Therefore, the proposal to transfer the complainants showed a rushed action concealing other motives unrelated to genuine administrative necessity.
Furthermore, although the transfer from director-general positions to ministry inspector roles are both senior executive posts with equal salary and allowances,
a comparison of core responsibilities and tasks defined by the Civil Service Commission standards reveals clear differences. Ministry inspectors do not handle human resource management or resource and budget administration. Their duties involve inspecting and advising various ministry agencies, without authority to command or administer. The permanent secretary appointed the complainants as chief and ministry inspectors to oversee strategic areas and supervise all inspection zones but without subordinate agencies or real command authority.
In contrast, the director-general positions held by the complainants made them the highest executives of their departments, responsible for implementing government and Cabinet policies, managing operations, commanding departmental officials, and driving departmental missions to achieve set goals. The Departments of Local Administration Promotion and Provincial Administration have extensive roles nationwide, making them crucial units within the Ministry of Interior.
It is therefore concluded that the appointments of the complainants to ministry inspector roles in the Ministry of Interior's Permanent Secretary Office did not arise from genuine administrative necessity or efficiency considerations.
Thus, the transfer from director-general to ministry inspector roles reduced the complainants' responsibilities, status, and importance, potentially damaging their honor and reputation. This constitutes unlawful discretion and violates the principle of morality under Sections 42 and 57(2) of the Civil Service Act B.E. 2551 (2008).
However, despite the unlawful discretion in transferring the complainants, subsequent facts show that complainant Narucha received royal appointment relieving him from the ministry inspector role and reinstating him as Director-General of the Department of Provincial Administration, a similar senior executive position. Meanwhile, complainant Chaiwat has retired. Therefore, revoking these appointments would not benefit the administration. For these reasons, the CSC majority decided to close the complaint cases.
The minority opinion, held by one member (Sitthipong Puangwongsanurak), considered that the transfers of the two complainants from director-general to ministry inspector positions complied with procedures under Sections 57(1)(2) and 63(1) of the Civil Service Act B.E. 2551 and the 2024 Civil Service Commission regulations on transfers and appointments to senior executive positions within or across ministries. He viewed the transfers as lawful exercises of discretion and recommended dismissing the complaints.