Every socio-professional group has certain norms and ideas about how to be a butcher, baker, candlestickmaker etc. properly. But with civil servants there is one specific difference: behaving in a manner commensurate with the maintenance of the state reputation is part and parcel of their employment code. A state servant who led a disreputable life was seen as unfit to represent the state. Transgression of regulations pertaining to appropriate conduct of life could thus lead to disciplinary investigation and trial. Such offences could be committed in service (e.g. absence without leave, embezzlement, drunkenness, violence of a teacher toward a pupil, conveyance of political leaflets) as well as in life outside of office hours (e.g. excessive debt, participation in political demonstrations, sexual offences). Civil servants convicted by criminal law faced additional disciplinary measures that ranged from mere reprimands to dismissals.
The applicable paragraphs in the employment code (Dienstpragmatik of 1914) are relatively vague as to what amounts to a disciplinary offence. § 24 states that state servants must protect the reputation of the estate (Standesansehen) on as well off duty. He must always behave in accordance with the requirements of discipline and must avoid anything that might foreseeably impair the esteem and trust commanded by his position. Additional paragraphs address interaction with superiors, colleagues and persons having dealings with state servants. State servants are expected to behave respectfully towards their superiors and decent (anständig) towards colleagues, subordinates and third parties. Additional paragraphs address participation in (political) organizations, auxiliary occupations and presence at and absence from work.
In situations of disciplinary offence local authorities formed a commission of senior officials where the accused person was employed. In complicated or controversial cases, a secondary level of jurisdiction addressed the disciplinary offence (during most of the period under analysis the Federal Chancellery was the central authority). The vagueness of the employment code has turned out to be very convenient for the purposes of this research project: One can find negotiations of the boundaries of (in-) decency within disciplinary files. Members of disciplinary commissions discuss whether a deed was a disciplinary offence or merely a minor administrative offence (Ordnungswidrigkeit), how grave an offence was considered and whether or which penal measures were therefore in order. In some instances the accused person protested the accusation. Other files include witness accounts or accounts of those who informed authorities about the possible offence. Together these accounts make for valuable sources that offer insight into lives and life conduct of state servants.
The Austrian State Archive (Archive of the Republic) holds a collection of files of the aforementioned secondary level of jurisdiction, the Disziplinaroberkommission (Higher commission for disciplinary procedures). The collection consists of around 1000 cases from the years 1916 to 1938 from which I will present some examples in further blogposts.